My Take on a College Playoff System

Alrighty, I've been in some good discussions lately about a college playoff system and I not only want to give this to my readers (as few as that might be), I also wanted to lay everything out for my benefit.

One of the biggest flaws most non-playoffers have about a playoff is the devaluing of the regular season. They like the "every game is incredibly important" and "out of the gate running" type importance that college football seasons have now. Here's a quote from a guy I've been talking to:

It is obviously easier to make a 4 team playoff than to make a two team playoff, because more slots equal more teams that get in. Am I right so far? And it would be easier to get into an 8 team playoff than a 4 team playoff, right? And it would be easier to get into a 16 team playoff than an 8 team playoff. Said another way, a team would have to be “less qualified” to get into a 16 team playoff than a two team playoff. Am I right at this point? Have I said anything that can possibly be debated?

Now, what does “less qualified” even mean? It means one’s resume would not have to be as impressive, no? What does the resume consist of? Wins and losses, and who those wins and losses came against. So if a team has a loss on their resume, it is less impressive than before, right? So am I still right at this point? Can any of this be debated?

All this put together, the larger a playoff becomes, the less impressive an entrant’s resume must be, meaning they can better afford a loss and still have a larger chance to get into the playoff than if it were smaller playoff. Thus, a loss in the current system (2 team playoff) has greater consequence than a loss in your 8 team proposal. Thus, a loss is less devestating. Thus, each games loses a degree of importance. Tus the regular season loses importance.

I conceded that what he said was true, but only to some extent was it true. Though the value of each loss is lessened, so is each win. There are too many teams and too little time for you to actually get a good feel for who's the best. Clearly going undefeated is more impressive in a powerhouse conference like the SEC or Big XII, but does that make you a better football team than an undefeated team in a non-powerhouse conference? Not necessarily. Everyone then jumps to the out of conference (OOC) games that were played.

I like to use SMU in this example because they went from 1-11 to 8-5 including a bowl victory over the top rushing team in the nation. Look at their OOC games: TCU and Stephen F. Austin. STEPHEN F.'in AUSTIN? Alright, not a well known team, but they do exist apparently. I would agree with anyone that this is not impressive OOC scheduling by the Mustangs and I wouldn't respect them if they had a 12-0 season compared to a 12-0 SEC team, however, that doesn't mean they're worse.

Here's the SMU Mustangs OOC for the next several years:

08/31/2013	Texas Tech
09/14/2013	Baylor
2013	at Texas A&M
09/28/2013	at TCU
08/30/2014	at Baylor
09/06/2014	at North Texas
09/13/2014	TCU
09/20/2014	Texas A&M
09/05/2015	Baylor
09/12/2015	North Texas
09/19/2015	at TCU
09/26/2015	at Navy
09/03/2016	at North Texas
09/10/2016	Navy
09/17/2016	at Baylor
09/24/2016	TCU
2017	at Navy
2017	North Texas
2017	at TCU
2018	Navy
2018	at North Texas

You can see how far in advanced these games are scheduled. The mustangs don't have an unscheduled game on their schedule until 2017. That's no different for a powerhouse team as well. LSU and NC State have scheduled a game back in 2007 to be played in 2020. That's 13 years you have to be looking ahead to schedule a game. So to say that college football requires some luck to get to the National Championship would be an understatement.

If SMU was able to get an OOC game scheduled with an SEC powerhouse, USC, Ohio St, someone that carries clout, you're probably looking 5+ years into the future. How quickly can a traditionally great program fall on it's face? Just ask USC and Notre Dame. USC had one off year this season, so that is probably less valuable, but if you had scheduled Notre Dame and they're down like they have been lately, you've made a bad bet. Not only would you have to get on that team's schedule, you have to hope that's a year you have a great year as well.So for the little guys, not only do you have to make sure you have a great team, you've also got to make sure you're playing great teams.

Was SMU looking at a potential National Championship run in 2010? Probably not. Is it possible? Yes, but highly unlikely in the current system. Now, not only do they have to be great, hope their OOC games are against great teams, they've ALSO have to hope that other teams aren't great too. If Bama and Texas go undefeated again, they're not going to get a nod. Can they be a better football team? Yes. Will they get a chance to prove it? No.

Is this SMU's fault? No, they're victim to the system. If there were a playoff system of sorts, possibly involving all conference champions and perhaps an at large bid, SMU could then prove they're legit. In the current system, SMU can go undefeated and have nothing truly great to show for it.

That's all for now. There's too many angles for me to argue this all at once, so I'll make it a series. Comments are appreciated!

C'MON MAN!

This picture is from my least favorite year that the BCS has been around (they're all terrible though). At the end of this season, UGA and USC were definitely playing the best football. I 100% think that they should have been playing for the NC. However, they played two terribly overmatched teams and won easily, leaving many fans pissed and some others letting out a sigh of relief they didn't have to play either team. Missouri got the total shaft though, not playing in any BCS game. #5 and no "big game," yet Illinois comes in and stinks it up against USC? Would Missouri have won? No. Should they have had the chance to win though, yes.

Other than that little story, I haven't blogged in awhile, but this has got to be talked about.

Stupidest story I've ever read and contains almost no real facts and ridiculous speculation.

For the lazy man (or woman), it's an article about the BCS system with quotes from the new chief of the system.

How anyone can say the stuff he did and think he can get away with it is beyond me. Let me give you some examples:

Bill Hancock said a playoff at college football's highest level would lead to more injuries, conflict with final exams, kill the bowl system and diminish the importance of the regular season.

More injuries? Probably, but that's what more games gets you. You don't think they practice just as hard? Not as hard as you play in a game against another team that hates you for that 60 mins, but still damn hard.

Conflict with final exams? Does the 64 round basketball playoff that happens every spring around finals seem to conflict with finals? The games would only be once a week, no different than the normal schedules, just with more importance. They're perfectly able to take finals, or in the worst case, move them to another day. OH NO!!! You can't say you support academic rigor if students might have to move a day his final is on! I've done it, lots of "normal" students do it, get over it.

Kill the bowl system? Isn't that the point? Hell, the people that aren't in the top "however many rounds there are" can still play bowls. The CMU vs Troy game last night was a great one. Could you tell that they weren't top 25 teams? As long as you're not playing these games during the same time a playoff game is going on, people will watch it! Will they go to it? That's up to the fans. Fans still attend the NIT tourny, so what's your point?

And now my favorite: DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REGULAR SEASON? HOW IS THIS EVEN AN ARGUMENT? You think people will expect to piddle around, be around .500 and make it to the playoff? Not happening. If anything, you make it more important. Yeah, I guess the top team in the country might be able to bench some players in the last game because they're probably going to get an invite even if they lose that last game, but isn't that what happens in the pros? Roger Goddell has stated he's looking at a way to fix this problem, so just implement a similar solution. Unbelievable what people will say these days.

Hancock said the fact that other lower levels of college football use playoffs to decide their champions doesn't mean it would work in the Football Bowl Subdivision. The second-tier of Division I football, the Championship Subdivision, has a 16-team playoff with all but the final played at home sites.

"It works at that level, I can't deny it, but if you look attendance for those games, only Montana had decent attendance," he said. "Many teams didn't draw as well as they did in the regular season."

You're telling me, that if Florida played USC in the Swamp, you don't think that game would be sold out? USC at Texas? Ohio St between the hedges? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If you think Athens is wild during the regular season, bring in Ohio St during the playoffs and see if we don't cover the campus in feces (referencing the campus clean up that had to take place after the South Carolina night game where there was allegedly human waste in undesignated areas and 200 tons of garbage all across the campus). This is another INCREDIBLE IDIOTIC AND UNBELIEVABLE ARGUMENT!

Yes, I can understand how the BCS bumps up college football buzz, but it's for all the wrong reasons. People are pissed because they can't prove their team is the undisputed champion. Boise St is now, once again, undefeated and I'm sure they'll boohoo about not having a NC. Why can't you just let them have their playoff chance and let them see they're unable to compete with the likes of Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc. this year. I would love to see them get crushed so badly they have to disband their football program, ultimately killing that God awful blue field. And with that I say: "BRING ON THE PLAYOFF SYSTEM!"

Willy who?

I wish I had more time to blog. I've got so many great things that everyone needs to hear!

On my mind right now is the latest UGA issue: a new(finally) defensive coordinator.

I've been a big fan of this topic for quite some time now, and it looks like things are finally getting good. After the news hit that Willy Martinez will not be retained for next season as well as a few other defensive coaches, I really got excited thinking to the future. I've been reading tons of blogs, which is mostly speculation on who our next DC will be. Let me tell you, do people even think about things before they post them on the internet (not a serious question)? It's like people are just looking at the top teams in the country and saying "Let's get what they got!" Here's the list and why they wouldn't (or in the rare case, would) work. I'll go ahead and list them by their current employer's ranking:

1) Charlie Strong- he's on the number one team in the country and our most hated rival, why would he basically be demoted to our program? Don't say money, because he could make more as a head coach and I'm sure he'll be one soon.

2)Kirby Smart- pretty much the same thing as Strong. He's on a team that's only lost 1 game in the past 2 seasons? Why come to middle of the SEC (currently) UGA when you have Bama who's richer than the yankees (see post below)? Yeah, he played ball at UGA and so did his wife, but money makes the world go round (see post below).

3)Will Muschamp - SERIOUSLY? He's on the most dominate non-SEC team that has great tradition, great recruiting in Texas, great everything. Not to mention he's the HEAD COACH IN WAITING! Who wouldn't want to be the HC at Texas?

4) Dick Bumpas - He's 100 years old. Yeah, he's done a great job with TCU's defense, but can that translate into a SEC caliber defense? Plus he's 100.

5)Strangely, haven't heard anything about Bob Diaco.

6)Justin Wilcox - this one could actually work. He's young, UGA would definitely be a step up from that God awful blue field, and his defense dominates. Notable accomplishments this year were holding Nevada (the nations top rushing team) to only 33 (when they average over 50 and were on a 9 game winning streak) and holding the Oregon Ducks to 8 points! 8 points for a team that blew up the scoreboard last night against Oregon State and any other opponent they've played this season (they're averaging over 40 points a game against all other teams this season). Yes, they play in the WAC, but what kind of talent can you get from Boise, Idaho? Who wants to go to college in Idaho? IDAHO?! With the talent that we're able to cook up every year, this guy could probably get some things going. I have to admit, I don't know much about his scheme because I hate Boise St and the terrible teams they play, but it's still an accomplishment to be the tallest midget.

So there you have it. There's our new defensive coordinator. Calling it now, watch and learn.

Just because I've heard a lot of other buzz from these non top team coaching fools:

John Tenuta - Blitz or bust. That might work in the ACC, but we have smart coaches that can beat the blitz. Also we've been doing a lot of braggin on a record we've accrued against a team he was coaching.

Ellis Johnson - South Carolina's DC. Probably another lateral move, but UGA is definitely a step up from USC tradition and name wise. We've also got a great record against him, but he's had considerably less talent to work with. Probably not, but a dark horse in the race.

What else is new?!

If there's one thing I've learned this football season (college or NFL), it's that referees are bad at their job. Luckily I'm not a coach in the SEC or I'd be getting fined right now! For what? It's been proven time and time again this season that the officiating crews out there might as well be a random bunch of people who may or may not know anything about football. Do understand that I've played competitive sports at a high level for most of my life and I'm use to having to do my own officiating. I've been a line judge for volleyball and tennis tournaments and it can be pretty tough. It's one thing to be a amateur official that just has to do it to reduce costs and be a professional who gets paid to make calls.

On the other hand, their job is tough. In football, one referee is responsible for keeping up with several different jobs. For example, if there's a perfectly thrown ball to the corner of the endzone and a receiver is jumping to make the catch and having to come down with two feet in bounds, it's a lot to have to make sure the ball is in possession, he comes down with both toes in bounds, and hangs on to the ball while two grown men are fighting in the air. I understand how fast something like this happens and how it can be very difficult to be accurate on a call of this nature. HOWEVER, when these calls do get botched, it can have an incredible impact on the game. We've been fortunate in the recent years to have video reviews implemented into our officiating, but calls can and have been missed. I understand that some things are considered non-reviewable" due to the pace of the game, but is it a ridiculous expectation to have a designated official just watching video replays? With the camera technology we have these days, you can slow something down as slow as you want it, have a clearer than real life picture, and make an extremely accurate call as you can get many different angles and pause the video to analyze several different factors.

Feet in bounds? Check. Possession of the ball? Check. Breaking the plain of the endzone? Check. Looks like a touchdown, call it a touchdown.

Why does the review have to be indisputable evidence? You're getting much more information than the ref watching the action at full speed, don't you think you can make a better call? Hell, why do we even need refs down on the field? We've seen them get in the way several times and all they do is get mad that they're too slow to get out of the way. Give them a couple monitors, seem them up in the booth. HAVE A CAMERA THEY CONTROL AND ARE SPECIALLY TRAINED TO OPERATE AND LET THEM WATCH THE PLAYS THE WAY THEY NEED TO! Far too often this season (as you've seen in the video), teams have gotten bailed out by officials. I think it's time that this changed. That and a playoff system (but that's another post)!

Edit:
Chad Ochocinco fined for a little humor
Jay Cutler and Tommie Harris fined after the Arizona game
Fines issued after the Falcons-Redskins "melee"

Read those articles. They're not very long, I promise. Now, can anyone tell me why a player who punched another player in the face is fined much less than someone who uses their words like a grown man? Isn't that what we've learned over the years? Perhaps thI'm not sure why they're coming down so hard on people who critize refs or even have a little fun with them (the fact that excessive celebration penalties are given out like fruit cake during Christmas is yet another debate), but it's so annoying to see. Remember when TO would call his mom to tell her about his touchdown, or pull out a sharpie to autograph a football after a great play? Those were the good ol days. Yes, I guess it's a little showboatsmanship, but that's what makes it so fun to watch! Back to the Falcons game, Mike Smith was protecting his QB (what any good coach would do), and simply ended a potential problem before it began, yet he was the most heavily fined. Perhaps the NFL is promoting more "entertainment" in the form of physical altercations. So far, all evidence is pointing that way, right Tom Cable?


These players are the best at what they do, and if they do something that's even great by their standards, why not let them have a little fun? I'll leave you with a quote from the NFL:

"Enjoying the moment in the endzone a little because you made a sweet catch? NOT ON MY WATCH!" says the NFL. "We in no way, shape or form, condone or promote fun in our league. Take it or leave it. If players want to have fun, they're in the wrong business."

Got Money? Here's a World Series Trophy!

Fact: The three guys above, combined, make more money than four different teams' entire rosters make (AND THESE AREN'T EVEN THE TOP PAID PLAYERS ON THE YANKEES!)

Yes, I'm a Braves fan, and yes, I do hate the Yankees. With all that aside, I don't understand how the fact that the Yankees payroll is almost $80 million more than the next highest paid team doesn't come up more often. They're more than double that of their World Series opponents!

For years, you see the Yankees chase the hot players, offering them insane contracts to come and play for them. In the past, it's always seemed like New York is the place that good players come to die, so I guess a congratulations is in order for them. THEY ACTUALLY DID SOMETHING WORTH WHILE!

Yeah, yeah, they've won 27 WS now, but they've been gobbling up talent from other teams so often, it's not even that fun to watch. It's kinda like the Dream Team in the NBA playing a rag-tag bunch of guys that are trying to make a name for themselves, but more often than not, the Dream Team is put to shame. Eventually, they'll all click and it'll be too much for anyone to handle, but it's not as often as you would expect. Shouldn't that be more of a big deal? I fully expect the Yankees to go pick up Utley after what he did to them in game 5. Maybe not because they want to use him, but just so he can't play against them again. That's a pretty good strategy if you ask me.

So go enjoy your World Series that you worked so hard for. All that hard work making players better and developing that raw talent into refined skill, you've earned it! Oh wait, you just let another team do that and jump on the hot tamale train. Well, you won! And that's what really matters! Right?

Great Job Brees!

Great job on your PERFECT game on Monday night Drew! The Saints mania continued last night on Sportscenter. The "recap" of the game was shown with not a little Saints bias, there were literally ZERO Falcons highlights in the reel. They didn't show Grimes ridiculous jump to pick off Brees, they didn't show the huge hit DeCou had on Brees causing a fumble for a Falcon touchdown, no Turner runs, no White catches, nothing. Now don't get me wrong, the Saints had some highlights, but they weren't the only show in town! Give me a break ESPN. I expected to get an actual summary of the game, instead I got nothing but Saints highlights. Again, do people not realize they actually play against other teams?

SAINTS!

Did anyone watch the Falcons game last night? What a great game. However, what wasn't so great was the announcers incredible bias of the Saints. Do you think they even noticed the Saints had an opponent?

This morning, I was talking with a coworker about the apparent Saints fever that's sweeping the nation. We decided that there should be a Saints vs Saints game held in the Super Dome and should be nationally televised! Doesn't that sound like the best idea ever?! I know Jon Gruden would be giddy with excitement!

Continuing on with this style of thinking (I tend to get carried away with ridiculous ideas such as this), I typed out a fake email from Google after I typed Drew Brees' name into their website:

From: DrewBreesfansupport@google.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 9:35 PM
To: Matthew Joines
Cc: The Saints
Subject: SAINTS RULE!

Fellow Drew Brees fan,

Thank you for your interest into Drew Brees and the Saints. We see that you looked at his Wikipedia page recently, but please understand that website can be full of false information. The following is the truth about Drew:

Drew Brees is actually from the great state of New Orleans Saints and was born right in the Super Dome (The home of the New Orleans Saints!)! Brees played middle school, high school, and college football for the New Orleans Saints and is the MVP of the Saints for 31 years! He’s currently the best quarterback in the NNOSFL (National New Orleans Saints Football League) according to everyone! He’s thrown infinity touchdowns in his tenure as a Saint and negative infinity interceptions (The “interception” that those terrible refs called last night was later reviewed by league officials (Drew Brees) and determined to be an act of sorcery and against the rules).

Brees was in a sportscenter commercial that is agreed by everyone that has ever seen it (and some that haven’t) to be the greatest commercial ever created and a deal is being worked out for a channel that will exclusively play the ad in a loop. Drew Brees is currently in talks with becoming the spokesman for all consumer products.

In the football game against the Falcons last night, Drew Brees threw 25 complete passes. Though the stat line says he threw 33 passes total, these were only dillusions that non-Saints fans aren’t prepared to handle and only appear to be passes. Noncoincidentally, 25 cancer patients at the game last night were cured of their illness. Katrina was just a pass that Drew Brees threw out into the ocean during a cruise for a fan to see his perfect throwing motion. Brees knew that this would occur, but also knew the city would be rebuilt better and more to his liking.

If you’re interested in hearing more about Drew Brees, simply type any word into our search engine! We’ve recoded our software for maximum efficiency for all the influx of Drew Brees searches. Have a Saints Day!

Sincerely Saints,

Google (SAINTS)

9 Drew Brees Way, Suite 9

New Orleans, SAINTS 9

Phone: 1-800-NEWORLEANSSAINTS

Cell: 1-800-DREWBREESISTHEBESTNEWORLEANSSAINTANDFOOTBALLPLAYERFORTHATMATTERPERIOD

Fax: 9