Nov 24th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Plays that Shocked the World
I doubt Barack Obama will be able to deliver on his hints that he’ll bring us a college football playoff, but one of the many, many shames of the current system is that Boise State is excluded from playing for a national championship no matter how many games they win. As a consolation, check out this YouTube of “three plays that shocked the world” from the 2007 Fiesta Bowl:
I much prefer the pro game to the college version, but if you’re going to watch college football it’s much more entertaining to see teams that really college it up with options, trick plays, and generally goofy stunts that you couldn’t get away with against the too-fast, too-athletic NFL defenses.
70 Responses to “Plays that Shocked the World”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 24th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
And that my local team might beat Cincinnati in two weeks, but by virtue of their Big East title they’d still get a BCS bid even though they’d have three losses.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
No, this is an entertaining play.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
This game is what makes me convinced the Utes should be in the title game this year.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
There simply seems to be something a bit, well, unfair about a sport in which one can win every game played and not have an opportunity to compete for the title in your division. That really rubs me the wrong way whether Utah or Boise State are ranked 6th or 20th.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I favor a playoff, but these teams could schedule big-time programs if they want to acquire the BCS points needed to qualify for the Championship.
They could also try to join a stronger conference.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Shorter Matt: “Wildcat? What’s that?”
Matt, Gregg Easterbrook already has the sophmoric NFL column space occupied.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I favor a playoff, but these teams could schedule big-time programs if they want to acquire the BCS points needed to qualify for the Championship.
They could also try to join a stronger conference.
Both are easier said than done; big-time schools prefer to get easy wins than schedule tough games against strong non-BCS opponents. After all, *they* don’t need to boost their strength of schedule. And you can’t just join a stronger conference without an invitation.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I favor a playoff, but these teams could schedule big-time programs if they want to acquire the BCS points needed to qualify for the Championship
Not sure about Boise State, but Utah played Michigan & Oregeon State this year.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Any team that gives up 65 points should not be ranked ahead of Penn State.
I’m not sorry.
And Utah sucks. Come on, it’s *Utah!*
Also, why should the ACC and Big East champs play for a BCS bowl? They suck!
November 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
All of those plays would work against the Browns. Every single fucking time.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The mid-major schools don’t deserve to play a title game. They play such awful schedules, apart from 1 or 2 games against BCS conferences and then maybe 1 game against another mid-major school that is quality. Sorry, but the difference between the middle of the SEC/Big12/Big10 compared to the middle of the MWC is unbelievably huge. Especially when you have to go on the road in front of 60,000+ 4-5 times per year.
Boise State would be racking up 4 losses per year, in their best years, in one of the BCS conferences (except maybe the Big East).
November 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
What Al said: I think that was one of the best televised sporting contests I’ve ever seen, in any sport. People forget about Oklahoma in that game, but it wasn’t as if they didn’t show up and play their own game.
Anyway, it’s clear that certain aspects of the college experience are having knockons on the NFL — the ability to call on the varsity rugby team, for instance, if you want to give the punter some mobiity, or have the offense drilling on underarm passing. It’s not just about drawing up the plays but having people with the skills and drilling to to execute.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
And Utah sucks. Come on, it’s *Utah!*
Compelling argument. You should have a vote in the AP poll.
Boise State would be racking up 4 losses per year, in their best years, in one of the BCS conferences (except maybe the Big East).
BSU would dominate the Pac-10. If that conference looking to expand, they should be the first target.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
lfv,
While I don’t actually disagree with you that Georgia or Ok St would likely be heavy favorites over Utah or Boise State…why are conferences outside the BCS even in Division 1 if they never, ever get a chance to win it?
This is what I have the main problem with. In college basketball the teams that play similar quality schedules as these football teams and go 28-2 or whatever get in the tournament, guaranteed. They might lose to the #5 team from the Big East but they get a shot at least.
It just seems really, blatantly unfair to tell a team that just won every single game “sorry, should have begged to go on the road and play SEC teams when you made your schedule 5 years ago.” And seriously, that wouldn’t even matter. No realistic nonconference opponents Utah could have had would get higher than 3rd or 4th in the BCS this year.
In literally no other sport played does a team go into the year knowing they have a guaranteed 0% chance of winning a title. Which, if I’m not mistaken, is a situation over *half* of Division I teams are in right now.
November 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Data Points for Bob:
Oregon State will likely play in the Rose Bowl this year. They were beaten by Utah earlier in the season.
New Mexico, one of the worst teams in the MWC, beat bowl-bound Arizona earlier this season.
Tennessee is one of the worst teams in the SEC, meanwhile Wyoming is one of the worst teams in the MWC. Wyoming beat Tennessee earlier this season at Tennessee.
BYU, Utah, and Air Force are all undefeated this season outside of the Mountain West Conference.
UCLA, solid, middle-of-the-pack in the PAC-10, was beaten 49-0 by BYU earlier this season.
Stanford was beaten soundly by TCU earlier this season.
MWC cellar-dweller UNLV beat both Big-12 cellar-dweller Iowa State and PAC-10 cellar-dweller Arizona State (they were ranked #15 at the time) earlier this season.
The MWC has 9 wins and only 4 losses against the “Big 6″ conferences this year.
Overall, the MWC has won 25 non-conference games, and lost only 11.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
That was the best football game I’ve ever seen. My jaw almost dropped off my body when I saw the Statue of Liberty play. It was one of the few times I didn’t regret staying up past 1am to finish watching a game despite having to work the next day.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Ismael,
There’s no compelling reason to bash the ACC. The Big East has laid a total egg this year, but the ACC hasn’t been any worse or better than the Big 12, Big 10, Pac 10, or SEC in non-conference games.
There are three constants this year:
- Playing on the road is hard. (See Road/Home splits of, say, Oregon State or University of California)
- Playing non-conference games on the road is impossible. (No competent team has lost a non-conference home game. The top BCS team to lose a non-conference home game is #23 Oregon, who lost to Boise State at home while playing without their top 4 quarterbacks)
- Playing on the road on Thursday night is impossible.
Let’s examine the non-conference road game issue:
“Most Difficult Non-Conference Road Game” by Big 12 team:
Texas: UTEP
Oklahoma: Washington, who is 0-11
Texas Tech: Nevada
Oklahoma State: Washington State, whose only win against a D1 school is the aforementioned Washington
Missouri: NONE
- My gut feeling is the Big 12 is seriously overrated and is going to get wrecked come bowl-time- Nobody in that conference plays any defense – I don’t give a damn if you run up 50 points per game against teams that don’t play defense, show me what you can do against teams that actually play defense.
What I hope to see:
Total chaos, and it’s not unreasonable – all it takes is home teams winning a couple of games
– Oklahoma State over Oklahoma
– Florida State over Florida
– Florida over Alabama
– Mizzou over Texas (Game is in KC)
– Oregon over Oregon State (Because really, Penn State deserves better in the Rose Bowl rather than a rematch against a team they throttled)
November 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
That’s got to be the best 12-year-old Offensive Coordinator in Division I College Football.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
It’s already been compellingly demonstrated that lfv has no idea what he’s talking about, but I don’t think the issue is that, in the current system, the title game should be between Alabama and Utah. The issue is that the current system is a travesty.
Utah and Boise State and even Ball State obviously deserve to have a chance to be champions, just like Wichita State and George Mason do in basketball.
There ought to be a 16 team playoff. The champions of each of the BCS conference would get automatic bids, and any other undefeated team ought to also get an automatic bid, with other teams getting bids based on subjective factors.
As of the current standings and rankings, would give us a playoff that looked something like Alabama, Ball State, Boise State, Cincinnati (or West Virginia), Florida, Florida State (or Boston College or Georgia Tech), Georgia, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon State, Penn State, Texas, Texas Tech, USC, Utah.
Would there really be an objection to having a four round playoff to allow these teams, or some similar combination, to compete and see who should be the champion? What would the objection be? Certainly Ball State and Boise State have weak schedules (Utah’s schedule seems perfectly serviceable to me), but they’re in the conferences they’re in. They should at least have the chance to win the championship.
Ba.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The mid-major schools don’t deserve to play a title game.
This is like saying the Rays didn’t deserve to play in the World Series. In most sports, we determine who deserves the title based on the outcome of the games. In college football, the outcome of the games are irrelevant, at least for certain teams.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
A couple of things…
1) The first play was used by the Miami Dolphins, an NFL team, back when Shula was coach and Marino was QB.
2) The shocked the AMERICAN COLLEGE FOOTBALL world only. Can we please cut the hyperbole a little bit. The world doesn’t care about American football.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
What John said: at the end of the regular season, you can usually say that the top ten, +/- two or three, are teams you wouldn’t consider undeserving overall champions. (16 is too many, I think; 8 is too few.) Chuck em in a seeded playoff, perhaps with byes or even some kind of double-elim format that takes account of conference title games, and let the luck of the draw and the events of the day kick in.
Otherwise, you just end up saying that the unfairness and the holiday-season arguments are considered features, not bugs, by the conferences and the BCS .
November 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
All the non-BCS schools should form their own playoffs. Then Obama could say from the bully pulpit “As much as I love the schools that participate, I don’t watch the BCS because it’s a sham.” Then all the leverage leaks away from BCS schools.
The truly elite teams at present like Florida don’t like the BCS either because they feel they can win the tournament a lot more often than they can qualify for the BCS.
One bit of leverage that Obama would have is monkeying around with the NCAA’s tax exemption. Big time D-I sports has ceased being about education a LONG time ago and all the marketing deals and concessions and television contracts have zero to do with an education mission. Threated to pull the tax exempt status of the NCAA (as some have done in Congress) and they might get their mind right on BCS.
And screw ESPN management for supporting the BCS structure with a long term deal. Way to spit in the face of 80% of your viewers who hate BCS.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I don’t know if that was the best college football game ever, but it was easily the best I’ve ever seen live (on television). Maybe the best of any sport — game 7 of the 1991 World Series would be up there, as well as game 7 of the 1992 NLCS and game 7 of Red Wings/Blues in 1996.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Keeping all of what i said earlier in mind, I still don’t think there should be a playoff. I just don’t think we should crown somebody “national champion” either. Let the conferences crown their champions, and have the bowls to see some good games and get an idea of how the conferences are (see ‘03 Fiesta bowl, ‘06 Sugar, Orange, Rose Bowls, ‘07 fiesta bowl)
The big problem is there is too much at stake to play enough games to determine the “national champion”. At the top level of college football, you have a non-trivial number of people in each game who are 6 months away from a multimillion dollar contract. Career ending injuries are far more likely to happen in football than in any other sport. The more games we play, the more likely an injury and it’s absolutely immoral to ask 21-year-olds to risk their careers when there is no benefit to them. We have had a couple of near-misses in recent bowl games (See Willis McGahee, ‘03 Fiesta Bowl, Paul Posluzny, ‘06 Orange Bowl). We don’t want to see Bo Jackson and Garrison Hearst-esque injuries happening before players have a chance to get paid.
The NFL issue is simply a non-factor in the FCS/D2/D3 levels of the sport, and is why a playoff can happen there perfectly reasonably.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Pseudonymous – yeah, a 12 team play off would probably work, as well, with four teams getting byes. Although who gets byes would be difficult to determine – the four highest ranked conference champions, I guess.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I can’t ever remember more than 3 teams with legitimate claims to be #1. A 4 team playoff would be fine. You wouldn’t even need to kill the established bowl games. Just make the pair ups in the bowls be the semifinal, and have a championship game a week later.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Joe – so you’re advocating the old pre-BCS bowl system? I’d prefer that to the BCS, but it does seem pretty unsatisfying. The AP, et al, are certainly going to be having polls to name the national champion, anyway.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Njorl – by your system, once again, no mid-major team ever has a chance to win the championship, which was exactly the problem highlighted to begin with. That being said, a four team play off would be considerably superior to the current system, and would be the easiest to implement.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
What I would LOVE to see is a system much like European soccer where the best teams get moved up to the premier league and the worst teams get demoted.
How would that work? Let’s look at the west coast. This year both Washington and Washington State are pathetic. Drop them down to the WAC or Mountain West and promote Boise State and Utah up to the PAC-10 next year.
In the midwest, bounce Indiana out of the Big-10 and bring in Ball State in their place.
In Texas, bounce Texas A&M out of the Big-12 and bring in TCU in their place.
And in the plains states, bounce Iowa State out of the Big-12 and bring in Tulsa in their place.
You get the picture.
Of course that sort of thing would never happen as the leagues have too much invested in each other. And they are for more sports than just football. But I would LOVE to see some sort of bi-annual reorganization based on performance.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS? How about Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
For playoffs, my vote would be for a 16 team tourney. During the first round the top 8 seeds would have home games. That would be a big reward for the fans to have an extra HOME playoff game just like in the NFL. Then the rest of the games could be in warm weather bowl locations. If we went with the current BCS standings, the first round would look like this:
16 Cincinnati at #1 Alabama
#15 Ball State at #2 Texas
#14 TCU at #3 Oklahoma
#13 Missouri at #4 Florida
#12 Oklahoma St at #5 USC
#11 Georgia at #6 Utah
#10 Ohio State at #7 Texas Tech
#9 Boise St at # 8 Penn St.
That would make for some interesting matchups. Think Boise State is the real deal? Watch them go play in Happy Valley in December.
Think Ball State is ready for the big time? Let’s see how they handle the Longhorns.
And imagine the potential for Cinderella teams if someone like Ball State or Boise State managed to steal a game on the road in December? That would be some dang compelling TV.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
The problem with a 16-team playoff is that it takes away most of the drama of the regular season. A Texas-Oklahoma matchup would be a lot less exciting if both teams were guaranteed s spot in the playoffs,
A 12-team playoff, with the top 4 teams having a bye, might be a better season. Even if both teams were guaranteed a spot, there’d be a lot to play for if a first-round bye were at stake.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“A 12-team playoff, with the top 4 teams having a bye, might be a better season. Even if both teams were guaranteed a spot, there’d be a lot to play for if a first-round bye were at stake”
might be a better *solution*.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Joe,
The big problem is there is too much at stake to play enough games to determine the “national champion”. At the top level of college football, you have a non-trivial number of people in each game who are 6 months away from a multimillion dollar contract. Career ending injuries are far more likely to happen in football than in any other sport. The more games we play, the more likely an injury and it’s absolutely immoral to ask 21-year-olds to risk their careers when there is no benefit to them. We have had a couple of near-misses in recent bowl games (See Willis McGahee, ‘03 Fiesta Bowl, Paul Posluzny, ‘06 Orange Bowl). We don’t want to see Bo Jackson and Garrison Hearst-esque injuries happening before players have a chance to get paid
That’s probably the best argument against a college football playoff. That being said, I have the feeling that opposition to a playoff system has much more to with vested interest (e.g. bowl games) than with genuine concern for players’ safety.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
John, Actually I prefer the current system, which wasn’t much of a break from the old one. I don’t think what we have is particularly broken in any way. It’s better in the sense that the ‘07 Fiesta Bowl probably wouldn’t have happened without it, and I like the ability to get away from conference tie-ins to make a particularly good matchup. Otherwise we could have been looking at this scenario this year: Say Penn State had taken care of business against Iowa. They probably would be #2 at this point, and yet would still end up with the Rose Bowl matchup of Oregon State, which is a bit of a letdown. I just don’t think we need to actually hand out a trophy that says “National Champion”
@Kent. It would be exciting, and drawing the line at 16 for football is probably like drawing it at 65 for basketball. This year if we take “Undefeated teams + major conference 1-loss teams”. That gives us 10 teams: Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, USC, Penn State, Utah, Boise St, Ball St. That said, extending the season by 3 games over its current length is a bad idea as I mentioned earlier. One solution if money weren’t the driving force would be to drop all non-conference games and have a single-elimination bracket of all the conference champions. Teams don’t want to cut out those money-raising games vs. cupcakes though
November 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
What I would LOVE to see is a system much like European soccer where the best teams get moved up to the premier league and the worst teams get demoted.
Though what you’re proposing is closer to the European Super League concept as the outgrowth of the Champions League. That would be adored by the big European clubs, but is a turnoff for fans, because you lose local rivalries, add in huge travel requirements, and don’t necessarily get the best performances. In the 1980s, when Man Utd played Benfica or AC Milan, it was a rare and special event. Now it’s often a dull qualifier in the Champions League.
If it’s a non-starter in the money-fueled professional context of UEFA, then it’s not going to work in college football: a SuperConference that took Ohio State vs. Michigan or UGA vs. Florida off the schedule (or even offered the possibility of doing so) simply will not happen.
Anyway, there are wrinkles in the existing system that have to be addressed before you even head to a playoff — the conferences with championship games, for instance, where losing bumps you down the rankings against teams that don’t have to play that week. But like I said, the question is whether the arguments and perceived inequity is a bug to the BCS, or a feature. It gets people talking, after all.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Hey, I would be plenty in favor of a playoff. But as long as there is 1 title game, sorry, Utah doesn’t cut it compared to UF/Bama/UT/OU/TTU/USC/PSU this year. You really think they have had more impressive wins and difficult schedules than those teams? Give me a break.
Don’t try to misrepresent what I wrote. I was merely commenting on the system as currently represented.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Pseudonymous – I don’t think Kent was proposing you have a single premier league for the whole country, but a number of regional leagues.
As an example, there are currently 120 Division I-A schools. Divide these into three regions, with (ideally) 40 schools each – the Northeast/Midwest, the South, and the West. Then divide each of those regions into four conferences of ten teams, with relegation or promotion. Or, at least, something along those lines. Ohio State and Michigan likely stay in the top conference in their region every year, so long as they’re both decent, so all is well.
(Presumably, you could extend this down to I-AA, and allow teams to be relegated and promoted from I-AA conferences to I-A conferences, as well.)
November 24th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
# LaurenceB Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Data Points for Bob:
Oregon State will likely play in the Rose Bowl this year. They were beaten by Utah earlier in the season.
New Mexico, one of the worst teams in the MWC, beat bowl-bound Arizona earlier this season.
Tennessee is one of the worst teams in the SEC, meanwhile Wyoming is one of the worst teams in the MWC. Wyoming beat Tennessee earlier this season at Tennessee.
BYU, Utah, and Air Force are all undefeated this season outside of the Mountain West Conference.
UCLA, solid, middle-of-the-pack in the PAC-10, was beaten 49-0 by BYU earlier this season.
Stanford was beaten soundly by TCU earlier this season.
MWC cellar-dweller UNLV beat both Big-12 cellar-dweller Iowa State and PAC-10 cellar-dweller Arizona State (they were ranked #15 at the time) earlier this season.
The MWC has 9 wins and only 4 losses against the “Big 6″ conferences this year.
Overall, the MWC has won 25 non-conference games, and lost only 11.
Utah’s big win is Oregon State. Penn State absolutely TROUNCED Oregon State. And also beat Ohio State and Michigan State.
Wyoming’s win over Tennessee was a huge embarrassment to the Vols, which delights me to no end, but Tenn was in complete disarray and melt down by the time that game occurred.
Air Force played no one of consequence outside the MWC. Neither did BYU. Utah beat the worst team in Michigan history and snuck by Oregon State.
UCLA is not a solid, middle of the pack PAC10 team. They are a sub 500 disappointment. Stanford is 5-7. The best MWC teams winning against the bottom half of the PAC10 hardly demonstrates a ton.
The MWC had an impressive record outside their conference this season. Of course, when you consider they played no powerful schools and it was almost exclusively against the pathetic PAC10 it doesn’t mean a whole lot.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Talk of a 16-team playoff is hogwash. Looking at the last 30 years, no team has come from below #5 to win the title on New Year’s Day in the pre-BCS era and only one each from 5 (ND ‘77) and 4 (Miami ‘83). So realistically, there should only be four seats on the starship.
This doesn’t allow for every conference champion to get into the mix? Fine. The notion that this year’s Big East or ACC champs should be in the national title picture is risible. As it stands right now, Utah stands a pretty good chance of getting into that top-4 range, so it is conceivable.
The huge problem right now is that 1/3 of the BCS system consists of the Harris poll (made up of a bunch of randoms with some connection to football, and erratic as hell, and only there because the AP was too embarrassed by 2004 to let their poll continue in the mix) and 1/3 consists of the coaches’ poll (which is ripe with sandbagging and manipulation e.g. Beggin’ Mack Brown at Texas). Only 1/3 of the poll (the computer portion) takes into account any quantifiable measure of strength of schedule and performance against similar opponents, and it is invariably dismissed as a bunch of nerd hooey (e.g. USC’s outrage at being left out of the mix in 2003, despite being #1 in both human polls, because the computers rightly judged the Pac-10 to be softer than toilet tissue that year).
Long story short: there is no reason at all to think that the results produced by the BCS are any better or more legitimate than the results of the old-style bowl negotiations of the 70s and 80s, and quite a lot of reason to think that the BCS paints a veneer of respectability over a system that is logically fraudulent and demonstrably corrupt.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
second paragraph above should read “it is conceivable that a ‘mid-major’ program could creep into the top 4.” Let’s not forget that BYU managed to palm a national title in 1984. By the same token, though, let’s not forget that Boise State needed double-overtime to beat an Oklahoma team that has become proverbial for flopping in BCS games in the last five years; any given Saturday, yes, but the notion that some undefeated MWC team is going to come in and lay the 28-point smack on, say, the winner of the SEC title game hardly merits serious consideration.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
John @40: yeah, a regional pyramid akin to the non-league system in England (from 7 down) makes sense.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
That game was the best game I’ve ever seen and I was at the Doug Flutie game in the Orange Bowl. It’s the only time I’ve ever seen the Statue of Liberty play even attempted.
I want a 16 team playoff that allows the 6 major conferences (SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, Big East) to send 2 teams each (eliminate conf. championships and send div. winners eg. UF and Bama). Plus the 4 highest ranked mid-majors (ConfUSA, MAC, WAC, MountWest, Sunbelt) or if less than 4 mid-majors ranked, the highest ranked at-large team. The tournament is seeded by poll ranking, thus keeping that tradition.
A point about mid-major schools is that they don’t go through the attrition of a major conference school. They do not have deep benches. While they might beat Oklahoma on any given day, they will not be able to sustain a playoff drive to win the championship. That’s not to say they shouldn’t get the opportunity, just that it won’t matter. Since March Madness went to 64 teams, the lowest seed to win it all in basketball was 8 seed Villanova (from a major conference). The next lowest seed was 6 seeded NCState, I think. Last year all 4 #1 seeds made the final 4.
As for the number of games creating more injuries, there is no reason at all that Florida should play the Citadel. Over the last 10 years, we’ve added 2 regular season games to the schedule while at the same time we’ve had fewer competitive non-conference games. The regular season could easily be contracted to accommodate the playoff system. And really, number of games played is only a concern for the 8 teams that advance past the first round.
The real problem with the playoff is where to play the games. While loyal fans will travel across the country to watch a single Bowl game, they cannot be expected to travel 4 weekends in a row. It would be great to include the existing Bowl structure (where first round games are played in the Sun Bowl, etc) but who would show up in El Paso to watch Florida play Missouri in the first round? Home field is too great an advantage to give the highest ranked teams.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Ga! I forget to put the email address and my whole stupid post gets deleted.
At any rate, I was just pointing out that Jon’s position seems to be circular – of course teams ranked below #4 never win the championship, because the current system makes it pretty much impossible that they should do so, since that would mean that all of the top 4 teams have lost their bowl games, which, even in the pre-BCS era, would be pretty uncommon. That doesn’t mean that a system which would allow such teams a chance would be bad. If they’re not good enough to be there, they obviously wouldn’t win.
Al’s plan for an 8 team playoff seems deeply sensible, though. It sounds similar to Obama’s plan for an 8 team playoff, interestingly. Perhaps Obama can show some of that bipartisanship he has promised by appointing Al as his college football playoff czar.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
@Karl
I agree – Florida didn’t play a game against Citadel. Florida played a quarter. Florida’s scrubs played the better part of the game…
The reason those games have been added is that they add very little risk, while have a big financial return for both schools involved – its one more week where everyone can bring in a pile of money. Replace those with playoff games and suddenly 95% of teams are losers in the deal – anyone who doesn’t get playoff games loses out on revenue. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be better to do it that way, I mentioned as much earlier, but nobody wants to because they all lose out on revenues. (Easterbrook does a good job of explaining it here: )
November 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Oops – forgot to post link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/080826
November 24th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I agree with John about Jon’s point. A team ranked #8 would have to beat #1 and hope that teams #2 through #7 all lost. Which can be difficult if, as often happens, some of those teams are playing each other.
What I like about a playoff system with a large number of teams is that the teams screwed out of the playoffs get worse and worse as you add teams. The teams on the bubble in a 16-team format are going to be worse than the teams left out of a 2- or 4-team format. You have to balance that with the length of the season, though.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Joe,
Easterbrook points out the obvious that it’s about money then he loses all credibility by claiming that USC plays an un-rigged schedule. USC played one top-20 team all year, Ohio State. Their motivation for scheduling tough non-conference games is pretty clear.
Any playoff system must require that a team win it’s conference division in order to make the post season. Only then can we expect top teams to regularly schedule tough non-conference games AND have a regular season that’s meaningful.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
The main point here is that Matt doesn’t like college sports at all, doesn’t watch enough of them for that reason, so whenever he comments on them he says stupid things. I hate hate HATE the NBA, but at least I know that I shouldn’t comment on something I only know about from skimming headlines on sports sites and what I catch when SportCenter is on in the background. I’m likely to sound like an idiot if I do, just like Matt does here – bitching about no love for Boise State is old news now.
NCAA FBS needs a 10-team playoff. This will encompass every team with a legitimate claim to be “in the conversation”. You use some version of the BCS formula along with a selection committee (a la March Madness) to pick and seed those teams. The bottom four have sort of a “play-in” game at the higher seed’s home field (10 @ 7, 9 @ 8). The quarterfinals take place in the current BCS bowls, etc.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Matt, I love the phrase “college it up” describe the wackey gadget stuff. My brother and I have resolved to use it from now on. Also, I completely agree with you about wanting to see more of this stuff in the college game. It is about all they have going for them, other than pageantry, of course.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:36 am
I disagree. Does the NFL play their playoff games on neutral fields? No, they play in the snow in late December and it makes for some incredibly memorable games. Make the first round of a playoff home games for the top seeded teams so they actually EARN something by playing through the season. And it is a hell of a reward for the fans. Then ship the final four off to some warm weather bowls.
As for the idea that the season is too long? Hogwash. The NCAA has added two additional meaningless games to the schedules in recent years plus the conference championships. Scrap the pointless conference championships, and with a 16 team tourney you have the following:
8 teams (first round losers) play the same number of games as currently
4 teams (quarterfinal losers) play the same number of games as current conference champions who play in a conference championship.
2 teams (semifinal losers) play one extra game
2 teams (finalists) play two extra games.
Grand total of extra games required to implement a 16 team championship in lieu of conference championships and bowl games? THREE.
Of course all the minor bowls could continue to proceed as today, the 16 team tourney would just replace the BCS games.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Pittsburgh’s longest play from scrimmage in the Super Bowl win over Seattle was a gadget play. Miami steamrolled New England earlier this year using the direct snap to Ronnie Brown for 5 TDs. The option doesn’t work in the NFL but trick plays certainly do.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The 2007 Fiesta Bowl is an argument against a playoffs. It’s memorable because it was a terminal event for both teams. If this had been the first round of a playoff series, & Boise State had gone on to get crushed in the next round, no one would remember this game. The only game that would be remember would be the last game.
Everyone remembers the Super Bowl. A handful remember Conference Championship games. No one remembers first round playoff games, except for fans of the teams involved.
December 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Texas Longhorns defensive coach Will Muschamp. AUSTIN, Texas — Texas defensive coordinator Will Muschamp has been designated head coach-in-waiting by the university, expected to take over the Longhorns when coach Mack Brown
December 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Kent State Touchdown – 1-yard run by Julian Edelman. (Nate Reed kick). 11:03 Remaining. Temple Field Goal – 43-yarder by Jake Brownell. 8:56 Remaining. 2nd Quarter Kent State Touchdown – 5-yard run by Eugene Jarvis.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 12th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:27 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:58 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra