[The following is from an e-mail correspondence triggered by my previous post on the Alabama National Championship Claims, reproduced (and edited) with permission by Andrew McIntosh.]

Ben, before you make it sound as though the Alabama Crimson Tide have always been given the unfair advantage in their claim to 13 National Titles, I think you need to look into the 1966 season and explain why Alabama was not awarded the title for that year.

Secondly, if you think every undefeated team deserves a title, that says nothing about the strength of schedule. There is a reason Alabama has scheduled strong, top 10 teams for the seasons opening game (Clemson 2008 & Virginia Tech 2009) and will face Penn State in Sep of this year; the strength of schedule does matter.

As an Alabama fan, I am tired of the poor press this year's team has received concerning everything from title claims to how Texas would have won had Colt McCoy stayed in the game. Look Colt McCoy is a great player and I think Texas could have beaten Alabama had Colt played a complete game of flag football, but this is not a sandlot game of grabbing flags, this is a game where teams must man up, protect their QB and play to the best of their ability for 60 minutes straight.

Alabama proved in the last 3.02 minutes of that game ( 1 forced fumble, 2 interceptions and 2 offensive rushing touchdowns against the nations #1 rush defense) how dominant they really are. Boise St. is a great team and I wish they had a chance to play Alabama, but until they play a schedule tougher than this years #83/120 compared to Alabama's #5/120 toughest schedule please be respectful of those who have clearly earned the right to be called - The National Champion.

Blessings, Andy

Continue reading this post »

By Brad James (the new Bradfather)

PASADENA, Calif. (AP)—Tonight in southern California, computers have decided Texas and Alabama are worthy to play for an immaterial “national championship” because Division I-A college football believes they’re too good to determine a title the way all sports do.

I say this because college football at the I-A level is NOT a sport, regardless of what BCS spin doctors say. It is a beauty pageant, but unlike Miss Universe, the contestants would look horrendous in bathing suits. No scintillating Miss Italys or Miss Australias, I regret to inform you.

Right now, the biggest tool in the world has to be BCS executive director Bill Hancock. My brethren at playoffpac.com (please, visit this site and if you have money to give, donate!) have lampooned Hancock’s interview with Dan Patrick several weeks ago wherein NBC’s NFL halftime and Football Night in America host grilled Hancock on what you tell an unbeaten team (Texas Christian, Boise State, Cincinnati were all unbeaten and kept out of the “national championship” game) that didn’t get to play for a title.

Hancock’s asinine response is, “not everyone can play for a title. You had a great season.” Anyone who has a brain and loves sports has what my copy editor professor at Southern Utah University called their “B.S. meter” go off wildly. The way to rectify this is simply a playoff.

Playoffs are more indigenous to collegiate football than BCS apologists would have you believe. Speaking of Southern Utah University, they play in a division of college football I refuse to call anything but I-AA, although the preferred title by BCS bigwigs is Football Championship Subdivision. Incidentally, playoffs also occur in Divisions II and III of the NCAA. What is the reason for their reticence in having one at the highest level, where competition is clearly the best in collegiate spheres?

Quite aptly, this title is a reflection of what actually exists in this level of Division I football, a playoff. While ESPN buffoons such as Mark May and (Lispin’) Lou Holtz were having nonsensical arguments about who would play for a mythical championship, a real one was unfolding in I-AA.

On December 18, an exciting playoff was culminated when Villanova edged Montana at Chattanooga, Tenn. This was a majestic conclusion to exciting playoff games, such as Villanova and William & Mary and Montana and Appalachian State which saw the Mountaineers only lose to the Grizzlies on the final play of regulation.

All of these games were rife with meaning and intensity and for several years now, at the I-A level of college football, I have rightfully deduced that the emperor has no clothes. I am no longer bewitched nor hoodwinked by the fraudulent specter of the Sun Bowl, even if it does occur in my old stomping grounds of El Paso, Texas or the Orange Bowl or any other bowl that does not have “Super” in front of it.

Furthermore, the BCS consists of the most despicable criminals this country has ever seen, rife with agendas that do not have the best interests of the athletes themselves.

Hancock says a playoff will hurt the athletes’ ability to graduate and increase injuries.

Just so Hancock knows, I have heard these arguments before. An assistant coach at Arizona State University (a member of the Pac-10, one of the conferences whose rear end the BCS kisses) told me that when he coached at then I-AA Idaho, the playoff got everybody banged up, but the kids seemed to want one.

As to a playoff getting everybody “banged up,” as one who played football myself, I know injuries can occur at any time in any situation. There is no empirical evidence suggesting that playoffs create more injuries.

As for the academic argument, Montana’s Brandon Fisher (the son of the longest-tenured NFL head coach, Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans) sported a 4.0 GPA, even though playoffs were occurring right through Finals. Again, I adroitly eradicate another nonsensical argument.

The federal government is already angry at the BCS for their illegal cartel and if this argument is the best they can do, they’ll go the way of VCR’s anyday now. As for me, this day cannot come soon enough. In any case, I tip my hat to the only Division I football champions for the 2009 season, the Villanova Wildcats!

Everybody get's in a conf.

Everybody play's each team in there conf. once.

The one team with the most conf. wins after 12 games (each conf. must have no more then 12 teams. If less they have bye's.)

You don't have to have conf champ games doing this since each team plays each other. If by some small chance there is a tie and the win over the other team does not brake the tie the tied teams would have an extra game. This would be rare.

Take the ten conf. champs (yes we would have to drop the 11th conf and combine that conf. teams with the ten others.) and those ten teams play it off using "warm" bowls sites. Part of the agreement to host a playoff bowl game is to cover travel expense for team.

All other teams that finish 700 or more get picked for all the other bowl games just like we do now. Yes some bowl sites (ones with field turf) may get to host more then one game. (a playoff game and normal bowl game)

There are no wild cards, you can't win your conf. then you can't play for the title. That makes the regular season very important. Why, you have to win your conf. Look at how many coaches say the goal is to win the conf.

If you think it is unfair to see a one loss Florida team not get to play for the title over a 2 loss TCU then........Oh wait Florida has one loss and not in the title game.

For those of you that think a 2 loss team should not play for a title.....LSU 2 loss's and one the BCS title.

Yes the conf. are very uneven as far a strength goes but it is that way now because of the BCS. If this type of system is put in place over the years I think you would see a lot of teams jumping conf. But the more strong teams you have the more teams go to the other bowls games which means more money for your conf. so maybe not.

I have been debating this issue and plan on a BBS and so far no one has been able to say something that would not make it work or be fair.

<!--Session data-->

As you can see I have been timing my bowl previews so the bowls stay on the front page until the game ends, while maintaining my two weekly series, keeping up with BCS News and maintaining the Bowl Challenge Cup Standings.

The joys of scheduled posting. The BCS Bowl previews will appear at the following times:

Rose Bowl: December 31st 8:30 ET
Sugar Bowl: December 31st 11:00 ET
Fiesta Bowl: January 2nd 7:00 ET
Orange Bowl: January 2nd 7:15 ET
NCG: January 3rd 2AM ET

Each of these will have a poll where you will be able to express your desire to participate in a live blog here. If ten people have expressed an interest in participating an hour before kickoff I will set one up.

Except for the Orange Bowl. I will be taking the 5th off, and pleading the fifth as to the real reasons. For now I will hide behind the alibi that it is the BCS bowl with the lowest ranked teams.

I know our fearless leader here at BCS Evolution is providing a full preview of each bowl game, with voting open on each one.

However, This season, I have been picking all the games over on the OSU blog, We Will Always Have Tempe (my season record was 573-201 (74.03%).

Unfortunately, Sam at WWAHT is stepping down from his duties, and another OSU blog will be taking over as of Jan 1, smack dab in the middle of the Bowl season. So I have decided to post all my picks here, so they don't get lost in the shuffle (utesfan, if this isnt ok, please let me know)

Continue reading this post »

Does anyone else think that adding an additional team will hurt the Big 10's chances in the BCS?  They've seemingly sent 2 teams fairly consistently, If this year's top 2 teams, Iowa and Ohio State, matched up (again) in a championship game, would both of them have made a BCS game?

Anyways,  if you'd care to take a look at the campuses/venues/traditions that you could be traveling to over the next few years, here's a recap of my fall traveling "big 10 country" from the average joe perspective:

www.THEbig10tour.com

Drew

With the announcement that the Big 10/11 will be looking to expand to 12 teams, just how will this affect the rest of the FBS landscape?

The easiest solution for all of FBS is if Notre Dame joins. This would not affect any currrent football situations, but would force the Big East to look for a 16th member for basketball becasue I can't see the Big 10 agreeing to Notre Dame joining for football only.

Continue reading this post »

I'm not that in favor of a football playoff for the following reasons:

1. With the current bowl scenarios, it places a greater emphasis on the regular season.  This is my main point. I like having each week be something special during the regular season.  This way a 2-loss team cannot make a run at the championship.
2. With the basketball tournament, teams can play more games in a shorter amount of time.  The teams are smaller and can travel easier.  Football travel takes more planning and involves more people.
3. How many teams would be involved?  What criteria would be used for the national playoffs?  Would the other bowls still get to invite teams not in consideration for the national championship?  This year, would the top ten teams be invited?  I don't see how Iowa should be involved in a playoff.  I would think you would need to invite each conference winner, or at least each major conference winner.  Or should it just be whoever is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings?  What would work one year may not be applicable the next.

The BCS national championship is set with the SEC's Alabama (#1) taking on the Big Twelve's Texas (#2).  The Rose Bowl was also set with the Pac 10's champion Oregon (#7) taking on the Big Ten's champion Ohio State (#8).  The Orange Bowl's relationship with the ACC champion meant that Georgia Tech (#9) was slotted for that Bowl.  That left any of the other teams in the top 14 of the latest BCS rankings who also had 9 wins or more available for the remaining at-large selections.  The Sugar Bowl's relationship with the SEC and the fact that they had the first selection since the SEC's champion, Alabama, is in the National Championship game, meant that they were guaranteed to select Florida (#5) for their bowl game. 
The Big East's champion, Cincinnati (#3) was an automatic qualifier (AQ) for a BCS bowl game.  TCU (#4), not from a BCS conference, was an automatic qualifier because they were the highest ranked non-BCS team.  Boise State (#6), also not from a BCS conference, was available for an at-large selection, but not guaranteed a BCS bowl game.  The remaining at-large selections available were the Big Ten's Iowa (#10) and Penn State (#13), the ACC's Virginia Tech (#11), and BYU (#14) who is also from a non-BCS conference.  The SEC's LSU (#12) could no longer qualify due to the rule that no more than two teams may go to a BCS bowl. This means that there were four spots left to fill with seven available teams, two of which were guaranteed a BCS Bowl game.
Here is how the selection process did go for the remaining bowl slots:
1) The Sugar Bowl picked Florida
2) The Fiesta Bowl (since they have a relationship with the Big Twelve and Texas is in the BCS National Championship game with no other qualified Big Twelve teams), selected automatic qualifier Texas Christian University.
* Note: The BCS organizers set a different selection order for the conferences each year. This year it was Orange, Fiesta, Sugar
3) The Orange Bowl selected an at-large team, Iowa.
4) The Fiesta Bowl selected Boise State
5) The Sugar was forced to select Cincinnati because they were the last remaining automatically qualified team.

Here are some other ways the Bowl selection process could have gone after the Sugar Bowl had selected Florida:
1) The Fiesta Bowl selects TCU (since they are a high-ranking team from that general area)
2) The Orange Bowl selects Iowa
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Cincinnati
4) The Sugar Bowl selects Boise State
With this format #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, #5 plays #6, #7 plays #8, and #9 plays #10.  It would allow TCU to take on a higher-ranking BCS opponent and if the writers so decide, declar them the national champion.  It would also allow Boise State a shot at Florida and if they won, put them in the discussion for the AP championship.  However, this scenario is predicated on the Sugar Bowl selecting Boise State, who they would not have to select and could have iced them out of the BCS games all together.
Another way this could have gone:
1) The Fiesta Bowl selects Cincinnati (who is the highest BCS ranking team)
2) The Orange Bowl selects Iowa
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Boise State
4) This would have forced the Sugar Bowl to select TCU as the last remaining automatically qualified team, and forcing a match-up that every would like to see between Florida and TCU.

Cincinnati and TCU had to be selected somewhere, but Boise State and Iowa did not have to be selected.  However, it would have been a shame to leave out Boise State, and kudos to the Fiesta Bowl for making sure they got into a BCS bowl.  After that, Iowa was the highest ranking team left on the board and I don't know that you could make a good case for Virginia Tech, Penn State or BYU.  Once Iowa was selected, Penn State could no longer qualify for either of the two remaining slots due to the BCS rule that no more than two teams from a conference may be selected for the BCS bowl games.

It is one thing to say that there should be a playoff or that certain match-ups are desired, but it is another thing to aim for some good football within the parameters of the current system.  So with that, I would like to present how I would have liked the selections to go.

1) The Fiesta Bowl selects TCU.  This is a non-BCS team from a BCS area of the country.  They are undefeated and have a good claim toward being considered for the championship.  They would have been foolish not to select them with their first pick.
2) The Orange Bowl selects Cincinnati.  This is key here.  Cincinnati is undefeated and ranked higher.  I like Georgia Tech matching up with Cincinnati better than I do Iowa.  I'm not really interested in the Orange Bowl with their current teams.
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Iowa.  If Iowa had not been selected by the Orange Bowl, I'm thinking the Fiesta Bowl would have given stronger consideration to Iowa here.  The claim they gave that Cincinatti would not travel as well to Arizona doesn't hold with Iowa.  This would have pitted TCU against a BCS conference team, even though Iowa was not the Big Ten champion.
4) The Sugar Bowl selects Boise State.  Boise State has defeated some BCS conference teams this year, but Florida is pretty formidable.  If Boise State could somehow beat Florida, they too would have the right to be considered in the national champion discussion since they'd be undefeated.  If Florida soundly defeats Boise State, then that would validate the BCS conferences' claim that the smaller conferences and teams don't deserve to be held in as high a regard as the the BCS conference teams in terms of the national championship.

These match-ups along with the BCS National Championship game and the Rose Bowl would have been more interesting to me.  That said, I do like having Florida and Cincinnati squaring off as it would show if Cincinnati deserves to be that highly ranked and if Florida shouldn't be third or even second in the final rankings.  If Cincinnati wins, shouldn't they be in the consideration for being declared the AP national champion?  The Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl really do not have my interest at the moment.  The Fiesta Bowl winner just ends up being the champion of the consolation bracket in my mind.

Now that the regular season has completed (sans Army/Navy), here is what my proposal would have looked like had my playoffs been instituted.

Continue reading this post »