Did Rece Davis Just Say What I Think He Just Said?
by T Kyle King on Sep 25, 2009 11:00 PM EDT
in Football
8 comments
This evening, I took my son to movie night at his elementary school, so I arrived home around halftime of the Friday night game . . . just in time to hear Rece Davis say the following as part of his "Extra Point":
- While a seeded playoff would be better than the BCS, the BCS is better than the pre-BCS bowl system.
- The problem with the BCS is that it makes the national championship the whole focus of the sport, to the detriment of conference play.
- Conference play matters more because you can control it and it isn't dependent upon voting.
- A good example of the previous point is the fact that the Texas Longhorns thought they deserved a shot at the national championship last year.
What . . . the . . . bloody . . . flaming . . . ?!?!
Even if you favor a playoff (and I know many of you do), you have to acknowledge that any playoff that admitted more than six teams (as any realistic playoff scenario would) would diminish the importance of winning a conference championship by admitting at-large teams into the mix. No serious person can claim that the addition of wild card teams has not diminished the importance of winning your division in major league baseball or in the NFL. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but no one can simultaneously praise a playoff and decry the diminution of conference crowns.
If making the national championship the sole focus of college football is detrimental to the sport (as I believe it is), how is the BCS an improvement upon the previous bowl tie-ins? When winning the Big Ten or the Pac-10 guaranteed a Rose Bowl bid, winning the SEC guaranteed a Sugar Bowl bid, winning the SWC guaranteed a Cotton Bowl bid, and winning the Big Eight guaranteed an Orange Bowl bid, the goal of teams in those conferences was to attend those bowls. If everything broke right, you might be able to turn a major bowl victory into a national championship, but the focus on finishing No. 1 was significantly reduced under the old system, which Davis denounced.
Finally, the very same set of rankings that determined which teams would play in the national championship game determined which teams would play in the Big 12 championship game. Rece couldn't have picked a worse example if he had tried.
I like Rece Davis, but this was blithering gibberish, so much so that I couldn't resist taking the time to declare it an exercise in idiocy.
All right, now I'm going to get started on Too Much Information. Bear with me. . . .
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
8 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
the only way...
to preserve a meaningful regular season is to only grant playoffs spots to conference winners.
1) ACC
2) SEC
3) Big Ten
4) Big Twelve
5) Pac 10
6) Big East
7) Open
8) Open
The two open spots would be for non-BCS schools. Seeding would be determined by final ranking for each conference winner. The two highest ranked non-BCS schools would get the other spots.
by mdhenshaw on Sep 26, 2009 9:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can't have a reasonable 8-team playoff with autobids
It’s pretty much a given that at least one ‘Big 6’ runner up will be a top-8 team every year, and at least one ‘Big 6’ champion will be outside the top 8.
Just in the last five years…
2008 – #3 Texas, #4 Alabama, and #7 Texas Tech did not win their conferences; #12 Cinci and #19 VT did.
2007 – #4 Georgia, #6 Missouri and #8 Kansas did not win their conferences; #9 WVU did
2006 – #3 Michigan, #4 LSU, and #7 Wisconsin did not win their conferences; #10 Oklahoma and #14 Wake Forest did
2005 – #4 Ohio State, #5 Oregon, and #8 Miami did not win their conferences; #11 WVU and #22 FSU did
2004 – #4 Texas, #5 Cal, and #7 Georgia did not win their conferences; #13 Michigan and #21 Pitt did
Besides, a ‘conference champions only’ rule creates wonky situations with ties (especially when the tied teams did not play each other, or there was a 3-way rock-paper-scissors effect) and seems like yet another attempt to force ND to join a conference for football. While I’d strongly prefer that the Irish play Big East football, since they play all other sports in the Big East and are part of most of our bowl agreements, it’s really up to ND what to do with their football program.
by drothgery on Sep 26, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Um, there are more than 6 conferences, and if you don’t automatically qualify every champion, then you’re leaving the spots open yourself, creating the problem you’re talking about. Plus, marginally unfair to only allow Big-6 conferences a shot at the game. I mean in the sense that if we don’t have antitrust suits now, we would if that was the case. Plus, who doesn’t love pulling for the Cinderella?
by blackertai on Sep 26, 2009 11:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It is marginally unfair . . .
. . . but only marginally, and we both know from experience that, if you start allowing at-large berths, they’re going to go to major conference runners-up at least as often as to mid-major conference champions.
Again, my point was not to re-open the playoff debate; I strongly oppose a playoff, but I understand that there are principled reasons for being a conscientious playoff advocate. I respect those arguments while respectfully disagreeing with them.
What Rece said last night was incoherent, though. It was a jumbled mess of irreconcilable thoughts. Most playoff advocates I know favor an eight-team playoff with at-large berths, which sometimes would go to the Mountain West or WAC champion and sometimes would go to a conference runner-up such as Alabama last year or Michigan in 2006. It’s impossible to do it by a strict formula without shutting out some deserving contenders, but that opens the door for diminishing the importance of conference championships. That may be a risk worth running to most playoff advocates, but you cannot simultaneously hold in your head all the thoughts Rece espoused last night. Any one by itself is perfectly reasonable; all of them at once is nonsensical.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Sep 26, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Those lesser conferences are left out as it is right now. You could take the top 10 conference champions and let the lesser ranked one play in two play in games. My plan leaves two spots for “other conferences.” The open spots would not be for the big 6.
by mdhenshaw on Sep 26, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The current system already doesn’t care about conference champions for the game that matters (or at least the game that gets all the attention barring unusual circumstances). Nebraska and Oklahoma teams that did not win the Big 12 played in the 2001 and 2003 season BCS title games (undeservedly, and they lost, but they did). A Michigan team that did not win the Big Ten very nearly did the same in 2006. An Ohio State team that would not have gone to the Rose Bowl won the BCS title after the 2002 season.
by drothgery on Sep 26, 2009 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure what’s so difficult to understand about what I said would work. There would be no auto-bids for major conferences. The open spots would be for conference champions of lesser conferences plus independents. The highest ranked conference champions/independents would the two open spots.
by mdhenshaw on Sep 26, 2009 8:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It certainly looked like you were proposing an 8-team playoff of BCS 6 champs + the two highest ranked mid-major champs (which in my opinion certainly would not produce a reasonable playoff, as per above). If that’s not what you were proposing, what were you proposing?
by drothgery on Sep 27, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
