Saturday, September 09, 2006
The First 2006 College Football Post
I've been meaning to write an inaugural 2006 College Football Season post for some time now, but you know how it is. Even if you don't know, I do, so there. But anyway, now that it's the morning of the second Saturday of the season, these are the thoughts I have as we look toward a new year of one of my favorite sports.
1. BYU lost last week, so their national championship hopes, and probably their BCS bowl hopes are already shot. That takes a lot of the fun out of the season, but hopefully we'll be in the Mountain West Conference race, and at least get to a bowl or something. I like BYU's schedule this year--I think it's just right. In addition to the conference games, we've got a PAC-10 team, an ACC team, a C-USA team, and a WAC team. That's spreading the love around just right, involving some decent "BCS" teams and poor hapless Utah State to beat up on. I was a little embarassed last year when we played Eastern Illinois (and even more so when we didn't beat them as soundly as we should have).
2. Speaking of which, I'm not so sure I like what the majority of the teams around the country have done with the 12th game authorized by the NCAA. Instead of playing a real opponent they schedule some dinky 1-AA team. I mean, did you even know there WAS a school called Montana State? (And yet they beat Colorado!) I know that everyone's afraid of a loss that could take away title hopes, but come on. If you want to be the best, at least play a program someone's heard of.
3. Speaking of which, kudos to those few teams who have been going out of their way to schedule tough opponents. I'm a big fan of the existence of tonight's Ohio State-Texas game. And last week's Cal-Tennessee game. And so forth. Although it's inevitable that someone will lose those games, everyone wins when they happen.
4. I've long been a vocal opponent of the BCS system. So how do I feel about the changes this season? Well, for starters, I think if you're going to create a new game, it needs a name. You can't just call it "The National Title Game." Come up with some cool new Bowl name, or resurrect a cool one from the past, like the Salad Bowl or the Tangerine Bowl. Call it the Awesome Bowl or the Domination Bowl for all I care. But call it something.
Second, I think the tweaks in the rules that give "non-BCS" teams a better chance are a step in the right direction. And for that I applaud the powers that be. But they're not far enough. If we have to have a bowl system instead of a playoff (and for the forseeable future, we apparently do), and if we have to have a BCS (again, looks like we do), then how about these rules: You've got five games involving ten teams. One game (call it the "Bodacious Bowl") is the national championship game between the #1 and #2 team in the BCS rankings. Among the 11 conference champions, the 6 highest rated teams get automatic bids to one of the games. Among everyone else (including the 5 conference champs that didn't get automatic bids), there can be four at-large bids, generally composed of the top four such teams. Notre Dame can have some special rule like it has now.
See, I think that scenario can make everyone happy. First, it makes me happy because the Sun Belt Conference is on the same playing field as the Big 10. A team from each conference has to do exactly the same thing to get to a BCS game. If, as has happened in the past, a TCU or a Tulane or a Fresno State has a great year, they can get rewarded for it. Plus, recruiting for the "non-BCS" schools won't be hurt by the fact that they stand no chance at a championship before the season even begins. Second, it makes BCS supporters happy because they believe that the PAC-10, Big XII, Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Big East are inherently better than the WAC, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. If their theory is correct, then the top six conference champions will indeed be from their beloved conferences. (And even I admit that, at least for the first many years, that will likely be the case.) But over time that may change. A team no one's ever considered, or even a conference no one's ever considered, may rise to greatness. And that's cool.
5. Two last comments on rankings. I don't believe there should be pre-season rankings. There's too much inertia involved. No one knows for sure (especially in a season like this one) how good a team is before they've played a game. Heck, we may not know till they've played a couple of games. When this week's rankings came out, they were WAY too much like the pre-season rankings for my blood (the fact that nearly everyone played a pushover team didn't help, though--I mean, what conclusions can you draw from the fact that Texas walloped North Texas?).
My second rankings comment is that there is no way in Hades a team should be ranked while winless. I don't care that Cal and Miami got beat by seemingly good Tennessee and Florida State teams, respectively. Winless teams should never be ranked (see preceding comment about pre-season rankings), and the rankings should exclusively consist of unbeaten teams until there are fewer than 25 unbeaten teams. Football is about winning, and if you can't win, you're not one of the best.
1. BYU lost last week, so their national championship hopes, and probably their BCS bowl hopes are already shot. That takes a lot of the fun out of the season, but hopefully we'll be in the Mountain West Conference race, and at least get to a bowl or something. I like BYU's schedule this year--I think it's just right. In addition to the conference games, we've got a PAC-10 team, an ACC team, a C-USA team, and a WAC team. That's spreading the love around just right, involving some decent "BCS" teams and poor hapless Utah State to beat up on. I was a little embarassed last year when we played Eastern Illinois (and even more so when we didn't beat them as soundly as we should have).
2. Speaking of which, I'm not so sure I like what the majority of the teams around the country have done with the 12th game authorized by the NCAA. Instead of playing a real opponent they schedule some dinky 1-AA team. I mean, did you even know there WAS a school called Montana State? (And yet they beat Colorado!) I know that everyone's afraid of a loss that could take away title hopes, but come on. If you want to be the best, at least play a program someone's heard of.
3. Speaking of which, kudos to those few teams who have been going out of their way to schedule tough opponents. I'm a big fan of the existence of tonight's Ohio State-Texas game. And last week's Cal-Tennessee game. And so forth. Although it's inevitable that someone will lose those games, everyone wins when they happen.
4. I've long been a vocal opponent of the BCS system. So how do I feel about the changes this season? Well, for starters, I think if you're going to create a new game, it needs a name. You can't just call it "The National Title Game." Come up with some cool new Bowl name, or resurrect a cool one from the past, like the Salad Bowl or the Tangerine Bowl. Call it the Awesome Bowl or the Domination Bowl for all I care. But call it something.
Second, I think the tweaks in the rules that give "non-BCS" teams a better chance are a step in the right direction. And for that I applaud the powers that be. But they're not far enough. If we have to have a bowl system instead of a playoff (and for the forseeable future, we apparently do), and if we have to have a BCS (again, looks like we do), then how about these rules: You've got five games involving ten teams. One game (call it the "Bodacious Bowl") is the national championship game between the #1 and #2 team in the BCS rankings. Among the 11 conference champions, the 6 highest rated teams get automatic bids to one of the games. Among everyone else (including the 5 conference champs that didn't get automatic bids), there can be four at-large bids, generally composed of the top four such teams. Notre Dame can have some special rule like it has now.
See, I think that scenario can make everyone happy. First, it makes me happy because the Sun Belt Conference is on the same playing field as the Big 10. A team from each conference has to do exactly the same thing to get to a BCS game. If, as has happened in the past, a TCU or a Tulane or a Fresno State has a great year, they can get rewarded for it. Plus, recruiting for the "non-BCS" schools won't be hurt by the fact that they stand no chance at a championship before the season even begins. Second, it makes BCS supporters happy because they believe that the PAC-10, Big XII, Big 10, SEC, ACC, and Big East are inherently better than the WAC, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and Sun Belt. If their theory is correct, then the top six conference champions will indeed be from their beloved conferences. (And even I admit that, at least for the first many years, that will likely be the case.) But over time that may change. A team no one's ever considered, or even a conference no one's ever considered, may rise to greatness. And that's cool.
5. Two last comments on rankings. I don't believe there should be pre-season rankings. There's too much inertia involved. No one knows for sure (especially in a season like this one) how good a team is before they've played a game. Heck, we may not know till they've played a couple of games. When this week's rankings came out, they were WAY too much like the pre-season rankings for my blood (the fact that nearly everyone played a pushover team didn't help, though--I mean, what conclusions can you draw from the fact that Texas walloped North Texas?).
My second rankings comment is that there is no way in Hades a team should be ranked while winless. I don't care that Cal and Miami got beat by seemingly good Tennessee and Florida State teams, respectively. Winless teams should never be ranked (see preceding comment about pre-season rankings), and the rankings should exclusively consist of unbeaten teams until there are fewer than 25 unbeaten teams. Football is about winning, and if you can't win, you're not one of the best.
Comments:
Let's be honest Matt... BYU didn't have national championship hopes this season. Only way for BYU to even have a glimmer of hope at that would be to put something together like back to back undefeated season WHILE demolishing their oppositiong AND also playing and defeating some strong non-MWC teams. By virtue of their first season, they MIGHT be taken seriously enough to have a remote chance of playing in the national championship BCS game... it'd be a longshot, but they'd need to do something along those lines to win over the naysayers.
Post a Comment
