What Went Wrong?

Okay, well, readers will be aware that I'm not an especially close student of the college football game. That said, I'm well aware that Michigan is supposed to have a good football team. Instead: They suck. Like really, really, really badly. But why are they so terrible?

And what's wrong with the rankers that they had this stinker of a team listed at number five. Meanwhile, Bob Farley point out that had Appalachian State lost last week, then today's Oregon victory would have done much more to vault Oregon forward in the standings. This sort of thing, to me, is a big part of what makes college football dispiriting compared to properly organized sports.

Comments

what's wrong with the rankers that they had this stinker of a team listed at number five.

It's pretty well established that west coast teams (outside USC and Cal, which get regular TV billing) tend not to feature as highly as other teams of similar class. The east-coast fans say that it's because the conferences are tougher back east. This is arguable, but misses the point.

Truth is, the coaches and other poll-voters don't see as many west-coast games, just as they don't see App State play outside the I-AA playoffs. Plus, they don't want to vote for west-coast teams, because boosting the rankings of teams they play mean that they get more credit for beating them. As such, any ranking system based upon polling is patently full of shit; and one in which people cast their votes in order to improve their own prospects is overflowing with it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 8, 2007 7:12 PM

And I'll just add: there will be someone who votes for Michigan in the coming week's polls. Perhaps just one person, but someone will do it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 8, 2007 7:13 PM

I doubt there is any precedent for a team going from #5 to not only out of the top 25 but also not getting any votes.

Meanwhile, Northwestern is 2-0...

Posted by hopeless pedant | September 8, 2007 7:14 PM

Well, as a passionate and idealistic college student who bleeds Scarlet and Gray, there are a few things that have always been unquestionable in my mind, one of which is that no matter what anybody says or what any stat shows, Michigan sucks and will always suck. Go Buckeyes!

Posted by Matthew Struhar | September 8, 2007 7:16 PM

Just remember - the one thing the Wolverines now aim for is beating the Buckeyes, hopefully when then latter are undefeated. Normally the way things work out...

Posted by hopeless pedant | September 8, 2007 7:22 PM

I don't know exactly what "dispiriting" means, but we *should* bump Oregon up less in our estimation of their abilities for beating a Michigan team that lost to Appalachian State than we would for beating a Michigan team that beat Appalachian State. That's valuable information, that deserves to be taken into account.

Posted by dr. zeuss | September 8, 2007 7:37 PM

Yes, there are inherent problems with the ranking systems, such as those listed above. But, one problem, and this is more of a function of low-information voters, is that voters seem to ignore the overarching picture when it comes to teams.

When applying this to Michigan, EVERY voter was aware that Michigan returned Chad Henne, starting QB, Mike Hart, starting RB, Jake Long, starting LT, and Mario Manningham, starting WR. But most voters were NOT aware that Michigan lost virtually everybody else of importance, especially on defense.

Michigan reminds me of a team more close to my heart: Texas A&M in 2005-06. The season before, the Aggies had gone 7-5, and our starting QB, Reggie McNeal, was mentioned in the top 5 for preseason Heisman voting. We were being mentioned as a top "dark-horse" candidate for the National Championship. We also returned a freshman RB, Courtney Lewis, who had run for 1000+ yards. But, we lost almost all of our defense. No one in the media noticed this. Ergo, we were horribly overranked. We had a terrible season.

Anyway, this is still an indictment of the polling system and its inherent problems. In my view, get some more computer programs to run this thing and let them hash it out.

Posted by eggman | September 8, 2007 7:38 PM

Perhaps a timeless favorite chant of college sports fans can explain Michigan's woes this year: OVERRATED...

Posted by omede | September 8, 2007 7:49 PM

But of course, assholes like Mike Lupica spend their time on ESPNs' Sports Reporters denigrating the computer programs. What is really required in college football is a 4 team playoff system. There are currently 5 bowls in the BCS system with each of them getting the championship game every 5 years. I propose the following scenario. Let the 4 top ranked teams play in 2 of the bowls with the winners playing the following week in the third bowl. As an example, starting with the 2009 bowls assume the following.

2009

#4 ranked team plays #1 ranked team in the Sugar bowl
#2 ranked team plays #3 ranked team in the Fiesta bowl.
the two winners play for the championship in the Rose bowl.

2010

#4 ranked team plays #1 ranked team in the Cotton bowl
#2 ranked team plays #3 ranked team in the Fiesta bowl.
the two winners play for the championship in the Sugar bowl.

2011

#4 ranked team plays #1 ranked team in the Orange bowl
#2 ranked team plays #3 ranked team in the Cotton bowl.
the two winners play for the championship in the Fiesta bowl.

2012

#4 ranked team plays #1 ranked team in the Orange bowl
#2 ranked team plays #3 ranked team in the Rose bowl.
the two winners play for the championship in the Cotton bowl.

2013

#4 ranked team plays #1 ranked team in the Sugar bowl.
#2 ranked team plays #3 ranked team in the Rose bowl.
the two winners play for the championship in the Orange bowl.

This system preserves the current BCS bowl system with each major bowl getting a playoff game every 3 of 5 years and the championship game every 5 years. This system has the following advantages over the current system.

1. It's a true playoff system. There should be far less argument over the 4 best teams then there is over the 2 best teams.

2. The bowl system is preserved and even enhanced because, in the current system, only 1 out of 5 bowl games are meaningful while in the proposed system, 3 out of 5 bowl games are meaningful.

3. Only 2 teams play an extra game over the current system.

Posted by SLC | September 8, 2007 8:14 PM

If you check Oregon's recent history under Belotti, even before under Rich, you might conclude they deserve a little more respect...

And last time they met Michigan (2003), Oregon 31, Michigan 27. Michigan was ranked number 3.

But I am, no doubt, biased.

Posted by Mark Thoma | September 8, 2007 8:17 PM

Me, too, Mark. It's obvious no one from outside the SEC is ever any good (at least in their minds). Michigan just met its match, twice, in the spread offense. Either Lloyd brings in someone who can handle the spread on defense (English can't) or M's AD brings in someone to replace Lloyd. It's only gonna get uglier from here.

Posted by Russ in Portland | September 8, 2007 8:37 PM

The initial ranking was absurd. At that time, Michigan had lost the last two games they played. Worse, Troy Smith had owned them for three years in the game that really matters to them.

But I will be quiet now, as I hear the wings of eumenides, they who humble the proud. The Buckeyes also lost the last game they played against a real team.

Posted by Bill Gardner | September 8, 2007 8:41 PM

Why was Michigan rated so highly? Simply because they have the largest number of living alumni of any team in the US. It's the same reason that ND is always over-rated and why BC always gets into the polls. (Prior to the explosion of Rutgers, BC was the only team in the NE worth a shit).

I disagree that the coaches don't rate the PAC 10 higher because they see east coast games. Coaches see only 1 game a week, their own. Everything else is highlights. In fact, I would say the West Coast teams get more attention than they deserve. The PAC 10 plays in every major city on the West Coast (LA, SF, SEA, etc). The SEC plays in tiny little college towns with no media. The big southern cities like ATL and MIA have ACC affiliation but there are more teams in the east competing for the media attention.

Finally, computers suck. I would have a 16 team playoff. Winners of each division of each of the 6 major (SEC, Big 10, Pac 10, ACC, Big East, and Big 12)conferences would be paired by poll ranking(ie SEC East vs Big 12 North). Also the highest ranked champions of the 4 smaller conferences/mid-majors (Conf USA, MAC, WAC, etc) would be invited. The major impact of this system is that you must win your conference division to make the playoffs. Therefore you can schedule tough non-conference games because a loss does not prevent you from winning the championship. No more Michigan playing FCS opponents.

A couple of other points, Paul McGwire was awful in the booth of the Mich game. If Michigan was rated highly because of it's returning starters on offense, why only 7 points against unranked Oregon? Did you hear that Ohio State was changing their team name to Gator's Bitches?

Go Gators! Championship University is poised to make it 4 in a row. Tebow is God.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2007 9:00 PM

Just Karl:

"Did you hear that Ohio State was changing their team name to Gator's Bitches?"

We will settle this matter at dawn. Name your second.

Posted by Bill Gardner | September 8, 2007 9:09 PM

Hehehe, I'm still bitter about all the media pressure for a Mich/OSU rematch last year.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2007 9:17 PM

College football *has* a playoff system. App State *is* the NCAA Division 1 football champion. Many football programs prefer not to play in the Championship Subdivision, they prefer to play in the Bowl Division, where there is no NCAA champion. Sportswriters like to pretend that the BCS series is the "national champtionship", but in fact it is not. It is merely an arrangement where all the parties involved agree to give one team a trophy.

ASU is the NCAA National Champion. The Bowl Subdivision teams don't want a playoff, but if they wanted one, one exists. They choose not to participate. They have money, they have power, they have fan support, and they have a legion of reporters who want to play make-believe, but at the end of the day they don't *need* a playoff that will crown a national champion.

You want to know why they will *never* have a 4 team playoff? Because there are 12 NCAA Division 1 Bowl Subdivision conferences. Half of those conferences have *no* equity in the current system. None of the conferences are going to agree to a change in the system that will officially cut them out of the championship. None of the current BCS teams are going to dilute their share of the money. There is *no way* that a 4-team playoff will be able to satisfy the interests of all parties involved.

And that's fine with me. Get over having everything wrapped up in a bow, mommy isn't going to turn the covers back and kiss you goodnight, and people aren't going to agree who the best team in college football is. Quit crying about a playoff. Big-time college football does just fine without one. Real fans care about their team winning, not fake ratings.

Posted by William | September 8, 2007 9:29 PM

"The PAC 10 plays in every major city on the West Coast (LA, SF, SEA, etc)"

This is true, as long as you don't count San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento and Portland as cities.

Posted by Adam | September 8, 2007 9:34 PM

"I'm still bitter about all the media pressure for a Mich/OSU rematch last year."

That was a Wolverine fantasy, obviously, but embarrassing in retrospect for both parties.

Posted by Bill Gardner | September 8, 2007 9:39 PM

Why have the NBA and NFL successfully coopted the nation's larger colleges -- many taxpayer-supported state universities -- into operating their minor leagues for them? They don't all make money, and support the 'non-revenue' sports, which is the usual excuse.

Granted there's NCAA hockey and baseball, but they're far less pivotal in their respective player-development pipelines.

Let the majors contract with the university athletic departments, pay the players, and give them vouchers good for their education when they hang up their spikes or sneakers.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 8, 2007 9:51 PM

This is true, as long as you don't count San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento and Portland as cities.

I know SDSU has a football team (Marshall Faulk), but what teams play in those other major cities? Perhaps you missed my point. What other major conference plays on the west coast and competes for media coverage? Why does a rare great season by Utah or Boise State or Fresno State vault them to the top of the rankings? Because the have little competition for the media support of the entire west coast.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2007 10:07 PM

Tebow is a demigod at best, and the Gator's Defense is plain awful this year. Until they make it past Tenn and Auburn they won't really deserve their current ranking, but if the D improves, and they can win out the regular season then they have a shot at it.

Face it, there is the Florida Gators, and then there is everyone else.

That said, no other NCAA teams face the punishment that is the SEC regular football season. Of course the Buckeye's are the Gator's Bitches, as OSU were the most overrated team of 2006, if not of all time. The only people surprised by the ass-reaming the Buckeyes received from the Gators were those who didn't see any SEC games.

I propose that the top "ranked" team plays the winners of the SEC Championship, and then you'll have your national champion. easy as pie.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | September 8, 2007 11:07 PM

I'm more worried about LSU than Tenn or Auburn. LSU is crushing VaTech tonight. Look for LSU head coach and Michigan man Les Miles to replace Lloyd Carr next year.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2007 11:18 PM

Coaches see only 1 game a week, their own. Everything else is highlights.

And what sort of highlights reel will east-coast coaches see unless they're insomniacs who stay up for the late SportsCenter?

The SEC plays in tiny little college towns with no media.

And yet, curiously, has a couple of live network games in what might be described as 'App State market' every week. (This week was an exception because CBS had the tennis.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 8, 2007 11:26 PM

"Did you hear that Ohio State was changing their team name to Gator's Bitches?"

(sigh) Maybe that would be appropriate, but if Ohio State were the Titanic, I'd remain on the ship. I was shocked by Florida's superb performance against the Buckeyes in BCS Championship. In basketball, however, I felt that Florida's repeat was a foregone conclusion. They brought back so much talent from the year before, and I was pleased just to see the Buckeyes make it to the championship and give what was essentially an NBA team a decent game.

So, yeah, Gator Nation has all bragging rights over Buckeye Nation, but like leftover Turkey from Thanksgiving, revenge is a dish best served cold. And someday, and I might be an old man when this happens, the Buckeyes will defeat the Gators. Hopefully, it'll be in football, but it will happen.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | September 8, 2007 11:41 PM

I am in Ann Arbor right now; the Michiganians who care about football (not me) are in the dumps, with some sentiment among the townspeople that it represents divine retribution for the "money and politics" that has allegedly come to dominate Michigan football -- or, at least quoth a certain guy at a liquor store tonight on Dexter Ave. tonight, who ascribed the particular cause of the debacle to the inability of the Big Ten Network to come to an agreement with Comcast for the local broadcasting of games, thus forcing people to Sports Bars.

Posted by Ben Cronin | September 8, 2007 11:58 PM

Michigan's collapse has been building for years now. Their performance in bowl games has exposed a complete lack of speed at the skill positions. What is hard to understand is how the Michigan football people didn't see this coming. Or, if they did, then it begs the question of why something wasn't done about it.

Often, when supposedly invincible institution get their asses handed to them by an inferior foe, (see Army, U.S.) the problem is that the institution is ruled by politics rather than performance.

In regards to the human polls v the computers, it seems to me that a core problem with the human polls is that a team that starts our poorly ranked has ZERO chance of moving up.

For example, if the top 4 ranked teams all go undefeated, then numbers 3-4 are frozen out of the national championships. So, if you are West Virginia and you go undefeated, then that sucks for you.

This problem is even more pronounced for teams competing for spots in the top 20. If you start out out of the top 20, you will struggle to rise.

A quick solution to this is to stop pre-season human rankings. Let the teams play 3 or 4 games and then, if we must, then let the humans rank the teams. At least at that point they would be ranking the teams with some real information, rather than making judgments on the basis of ingrained biases.

This move would enable teams like Oregon or Washington, which have both gotten off to strong starts, to be judged based on their on-field performance rather that the perception of self-righteous assholes like Mike Lupica or Mitch Albom.

To put a particularly fine point on it, anyone who ranked Michigan is the #5 team in the country before that team had played a single down needs to have their voting rights revoked.

Posted by Choska | September 9, 2007 12:40 AM

Ah. Well.

*sigh*

There's always the MSU and Ohio State games.

The blessing and the curse of college football is: one loss and it's over, as far as the rankings are concerned-- but there are always charming little prizes to win in these little rivalries.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 9, 2007 12:54 AM

"Why does a rare great season by Utah..."

Define rare and great. In the last decade, the Utes have gone to six bowls and won all of them, beating Tulsa, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, Southern Mississippi, USC, and Fresno State.

Posted by Bill Gardner | September 9, 2007 1:57 AM

It's worth mentioning that both App State and Oregon run the spread offense. (Arguably, Oregon runs it with Div 1A players; it's gotta count for something.) The spread offense is not widespread in Big Ten football -- however, it's surprising they look so unprepared for it.

Obviously Michigan's defense has serious holes; surprisingly, their offense has not been able to keep up.

College football is incredibly unique in its bizarreness; only Calvinball may be more random. There's something to be said for a "federal" system here that can knock heads and gore oxes.

One final note: William may be the only person in the entire US (outside of the NCAA) who has labeled Div-1A and Div-1AA their new, correct names without resorting to air quotes or absolute derision.

Posted by Klug | September 9, 2007 2:56 AM

Are there any serious football scholars/theorists out there? Is there something to be said for the spread offense in that teams that are unfamiliar with it are at an extreme disadvantage? (i.e. UO/UM today and OSU/UF in January?) We could even count Utah/Pitt (I forget which bowl game.)

Posted by Klug | September 9, 2007 3:02 AM

"You want to know why they will *never* have a 4 team playoff? Because there are 12 NCAA Division 1 Bowl Subdivision conferences."

Why not a larger playoff then, one with 12 teams? Everyone could still have their bowl games (closer to Thanksgiving though), which would qualify the winners for the playoffs, and then there'd be even more cash to make with a few weeks of playoff games in December. An added benefit would be that the two teams playing for the national championship on New Year's (or thereabouts) wouldn't have the long layoffs they do now. Bring on December Madness!

Posted by Fred | September 9, 2007 3:58 AM

Meanwhile, Bob Farley point out that had Appalachian State lost last week, then today's Oregon victory would have done much more to vault Oregon forward in the standings.

Sure, but then Michigan would be a better team. So Oregon beating them would mean they beat a better team... one that wouldn't lose to a I-AA school. I have no idea why this is a flaw in the system. Wins and losses are important.

Posted by right | September 9, 2007 4:24 AM

The efficiency of the DI college football system (polls, bowls, BCS, "scholarships" for labor, million dollar contracts for management, local boosterism) makes the economy of the Soviet Union look like Toyota Motor Corporation. Boolah-boolah is about the moolah, not determining winners and losers (in the market or as sportsmen) fairly.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 9, 2007 4:38 AM

Klug: Even if the spread hasn't been widely adopted in the Big Ten, it's still been present in the conference since at least the beginning of the decade when Randy Walker's Northwestern teams were upsetting the traditional powers. Additionally, Michigan State ran it under John L. Smith, and OSU has been incorporating it into their playbook. The spread is popular enough that some anti-spread strategies have surfaced. Michigan's failure to successfully implement those strategies when playing teams running a spread offense (and they've had trouble defending the spread for a while) comes down to either bad coaching or bad recruiting.

Posted by Andrew | September 9, 2007 7:06 AM

This sort of thing, to me, is a big part of what makes college football dispiriting compared to properly organized sports.

You're talking about preseason rankings here. I don't know of any sport, amateur or professional, that has especially reliable preseason rankings. Preseason rankings are mostly a combination of how teams did last year and how teams have done traditionally, and neither is all the predictive. As the season progresses, the rankings will come to be more and more sensible, as more actual data on team performance appears.

None of this really has much of anything to do with the organization of college football, or the flaws of the BCS system. Having a playoff system wouldn't have prevented Michigan from getting a #5 preseason ranking, and Michigan's preseason ranking won't have an impact on the BCS series, so what's your point, dispirited Matt?

Posted by Royko | September 9, 2007 7:45 AM

Fred, why not have a 12 team playoff with all the conference champions involved? The BCS conferences don't want that to happen, that's why. It would be a bad deal for them. They've created a system that serves their interests and have no reason to change it. Making people who obsess over meaningless rankings happy isn't what drives their agenda. I suppose we could nationalize college football and force them to have a playoff system, but that doesn't strike me as likely to happen.

The only thing that matters in big-time college football is your team's overall record and conference standing. Everything else is "who would win, Superman or Mighty Mouse?" Yes, its fun to rank the best teams, but that doesn't mean that they need a playoff so that the rankings will be "fair". Get over it, enjoy your season, and enjoy arguing about what team is "really" better. At the end of the season, go to a bowl and have a great time. That's what college football is all about.

Joe, I agree with you that boolah-boolah is about the moolah. But the real money comes from fans going to games. BCS conference schools fill up giant football stadiums. If you are running a bowl, you will make more money by inviting the 3d place ACC team to play the 4th place SEC team than you would by inviting the CUSA Champion to play the Sun Belt Champion. Yes the bowl system doesn't efficiently pick champions and sort out all the teams fairly . . . but it wasn't designed for that purpose. It was designed to give fans of colleges a nice vacation destination over the holidays, and give conferences a chance to have bragging rights. It serves that purpose wonderfully.

Klug, I suppose that a lot of folks *do* look at the NCAA's new Bowl and Tournament Subdivisions with derision. Personally I think it is a good idea, any member institution that wants to play for a national championship can go to the Tournament Subdivision and the others can have fun with their Bowl Games. As I see it, the system works. I think a big reason folks are dissatisfied with it is due to media bias. Sports reporters are constantly complaining about the BCS and no one ever says "lighten up, it doesn't mean anything, the fans have fun, and this isn't a real national championship". If anything, my only problem with the BCS is that folks take their aspirations to crown a national champion seriously.

Posted by William | September 9, 2007 8:49 AM

Re William

I don't understand Mr. Williams' comment. The proposed 4 team playoff system will open the championship game to more teams then currently. In the current BCS system, only 2 teams chosen by polls are in the running. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the people running the Bowl games to move to the 4 team playoff. Under the current system, 4 out of 5 major bowls are irrelevant in any given season. Under the proposed 4 team playoff system, 3 of the 5 bowl games become relevant in any given season.

Re Fred

A 12 team playoff system would eventually result in one team getting a bye after the first two rounds. You have to have either 4, 8, 16, etc. The problem with more then 4 is that it would reduce the prominence of the bowls which is a no no. For instance, under an 8 team playoff system, one would have 4 of the bowls host the initial round but then are left with 2 further games and only 1 major bowl. Under a 16 team playoff system, you have 4 games after the first round and only 1 major bowl. The only way to solve this problem is to promote other bowls into major status (e.g. the Gator bowl). It also increases the number of teams who have to play extra games. After all, aren't the players student athletes (I know, ho, ho, ho and need I say ha, ha, ha)?

Posted by SLC | September 9, 2007 8:54 AM

Sure, but then Michigan would be a better team. So Oregon beating them would mean they beat a better team... one that wouldn't lose to a I-AA school.

Well, yes, but I think the point of that statement is how thin the line between a "better" team and a "worse" team is. In the wake of the loss to Appalachian State, and especially of this last week's....game (hang on, I just threw up in my mouth a little), it's easy to overlook how close Michigan came to winning that game. How if the die had tumbled just a little bit another way, events would have played out differently. If, say, Michigan had managed to get a hat on someone during that last field goal attempt then everyone's talking about how Michigan, having barely survived a scare last week, has inexplicably collapsed against the Ducks. Being so absolute in a game of inches is problematic.

Which is not to say Appalachian State is a poor team because they're not or that Michigan should have won just that they had more than a few chances and blah, blah, blah, I'm magically shielded from complaints now because I've been nice and polite. What I'm saying is that perception is everything in the polls. Michigan would likely have dropped, even had they prevailed against Appalachian State because that sort of thing is just not done. But not like a stone right out of the ratings. And yesterday's loss would have been even more shocking instead of a confirmation of a trend. It points out the need for a better system, a way of evaluating the actual competence of a team instead of their reputation but damned if I can figure out what that should be, myself. Because while Michigan was supposed to have a good team, the reality is they probably never did and somehow the majority of pollsters and analysts missed this. Which is a big, huge systematic failing that you'd think would cause some speculation and introspection except it happens to some team, to some degree, nearly every year. And the team that suffers here is Oregon because instead of being the first to shatter the myth and receive a huge boost in the polls, they just beat up a team in freefall and aren't going to get nearly the same bounce.

Are there any serious football scholars/theorists out there?

Not on the Michigan staff.

Is there something to be said for the spread offense in that teams that are unfamiliar with it are at an extreme disadvantage?

Michigan has, for years now, been unable to deal with the spread-option. With mobile quarterbacks who can stretch the field. This isn't just a recent phenomenon, not something exposed last years against Troy Smith. It happens year in and year out. Dates back to Syracuse in '98, if not before, and through at least a few defensive co-ordinators. I'd hesitate to call Ryan Lead mobile but the spread it out and chuck it down field vertical game of WSU gave Michigan fits during the "title" game in the Rose Bowl the previous year - the difference being that they had a good enough defense to weather that particular storm and enough juice to convincer voters that they should be penalized for almost losing (A position, of course, which didn't apply to Nebraska earlier, resulting in that split title in the wanning days of the pre-BCS that Michigan fans, like myself, are using to cry ourselves to sleep with at night.). Anything before then and I wasn't paying close enough attention at the time. I'm not exactly sure why this is, myself, if it could be a failing of the defensive scheme or a lacking in the coaching staff or something else, but if it's a riddle you can solve, you should contact the Michigan athletic department. There might be an opening available soon.

Posted by Sausaletus Rex | September 9, 2007 9:37 AM

Re: Playoffs

What really bugs me is the argument that a playoff in Div 1 won't or can't work. It works in every other level of football from Pop Warner league to high school to the Pros. Nothing about a playoff precludes the remaining bowls from continuing. The 3rd place ACC team can still play the 4th place SEC team in the Sun Bowl. It will still be a nice vacation destination for the fans, complete with bragging rights. I think something like 56 teams went to bowl games last year. A 16 team playoff (that would incorporate the larger bowls, ending with a rotating Rose, Orange, Sugar, or Fiesta Bowl) would not take anything away from the 40 other schools that are not involved.

Posted by Just Karl | September 9, 2007 11:15 AM

The whole bowl system is an unmitigated fiasco. Before the BCS the bowls actually meant something. I grew up in the Northwest and a New Year's Day Rose Bowl against the Big-10 Champion was a worthy goal. You knew if you won the Pac-10 you'd be there. Now the entire focus is on one "mythical" national championship game that is arbitrarily determined by polls and the rest of the major bowls fall by the wayside. Quick who can remember any of the major bowls from last year except for the spanking Florida applied to the Buckeyes in the BCS and the legendary Boise State win over Oklahoma in the Fiesta? For example, who remembers which teams played in last year's Orange Bowl and who won? Anyone? It was Louisville over Wake Forest. I can remember those Oklahoma/Nebraska vs Florida schools Orange Bowl games from the 1980s better than I can remember what happened last year.

The NCAA thinks it would be messing with a cash cow by upsetting the bowls. I think it would be the opposite. I think the NCAA March Madness tourney shows what an actual playoff can generate in terms of fan exitement and ratings. I think a playoff would be even bigger than all the bowls.

Personally I would go with a 16 team tourney in which the first round would be home games for the top seeded teams. Reward the #1-8 seeds with home games. Then have the quarters, semis and finals at traditional warm weather bowl sites. Use the current BCS ranking system to determine seeding then turn the playoff loose. Imagine the fan interest and drama if upstart non-BCS teams like Boise State, Utah, or TCU made winter playoff road trips deep into football power centers like Penn St., LSU, Ohio State, Florida, etc. and came away with upset wins. The interest and drama would be immense.

With a 16 team tourney no legit contenders really get left out. If you are team #17 you probably have had a pretty good season but you will almost certainly have at LEAST 2 losses and no real legitimate claim to the national championship. A 16 team tourney based on last year's BCS seeds would have looked like this:

16 Rutgers at 1 Ohio State
15 Virginia Tech at 2 Florida
14 Wake Forest at 3 Michigan
13 West Virginia at 4 LSU
12 Arkansas at 5 USC
11 Notre Dame at 6 Louisville
10 Oklahoma at 7 Wisconsin
9 Auburn at 8 Boise St.

If the seeded teams won out the quarterfinals would have been

1 Ohio St vs 8 Boise St
2 Florida vs 7 Wisconsin
3 Michigan vs 6 Louisville
4 LSU vs 5 USC

The #17 team that would have gotten left out would have been 9-3 Tennessee which ended up losing to Penn St 20-10 in the Outback Bowl. A 9-3 Tennessee team while decent hardly had any claim to the national championship.

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 11:29 AM

I thank everybody for their input on the spread offense.

SLC -- you've hit on one of the things that bothers me about the playoff scenario. Those who desire it tend not to talk about the potential impact of playing a median 2-3 more games on the chosen 16. I'd be more willing to talk playoff if people were willing to pare back the season to say, 10 games. After all, they are student-athletes and it would nice to have them rest a little. (wink)

Posted by Klug | September 9, 2007 12:06 PM

SLC -- you've hit on one of the things that bothers me about the playoff scenario. Those who desire it tend not to talk about the potential impact of playing a median 2-3 more games on the chosen 16. I'd be more willing to talk playoff if people were willing to pare back the season to say, 10 games. After all, they are student-athletes and it would nice to have them rest a little.

Let's do the math. The NCAA just last season allowed teams to add an extra game. Plus, most conferences now have a conference championship game which is pretty meaningless and unnecessary if you have a true national championship. So that is 2 additional games for some teams on top of the traditional bowl game.

If we had a 16 team playoff to replace the conference championships, perhaps during that same week then it would look like this:

8 teams (the first round losers) would play one less game than currently played as they wouldn't go on to bowl games and the first round would replace their old conference championship.

4 teams (the second round losers) would play the same number of games as a current team that wins a conference championship and plays a bowl game.

2 teams (the semifinal losers) would play one extra game than under the current system.

2 teams (the championship game teams) would play 2 extra games over the current schedule.

The total number of additional games played over the current system is a whopping 3 games. The two semifinal games and the championship game.

Frankly I don't see the problem here. Plus, we could still have the minor bowls for teams who didn't make the big round championships. Or frankly, if the first round of 16 were played right at the end of the season like the conference championship games are currently played, then those losers could even go on to bowl games too.

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 12:32 PM

Anyone interested in this topic should check out Bowl, Polls, and Tattered Souls by Sports Illustrated's Stewart Mandel. I just finished it, and it's a must for any college football fan.

http://www.amazon.com/Bowls-Polls-Tattered-Souls-Controversy/dp/0470049170/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9836176-2681418?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189364050&sr=1-1

Posted by Russ | September 9, 2007 2:56 PM

Kent,

Your 16-game playoff makes sense.

William,

The current system is like having the NFL without the playoffs: you'd have division champions and people could argue about who, in theory, would have won the whole thing. Better to have the playoffs.

Posted by Fred | September 9, 2007 4:13 PM

There are plenty of other ways to do a 16 team championship without bothering so much with polls. There are currently 6 BCS conferences. One could easily devise a playoff where The first and 2nd place teams from each BCS conference go to the playoffs with the conference champions earning first round playoff home games. That makes 12 teams. The remaining 4 teams could be "at large" wild card teams selected on the basis BCS rankings. Some of those 4 would likely be BCS conference 3rd place teams but every year one or two mid-major teams would probably sneak in. Certainly anyone like the 2006 Boise State team or the 2005 Utah team would make it in easily on that basis. The final two first round home games would go to the next two highest ranked teams that are not BCS conference champions.

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 5:14 PM

Michigan indeed got zero votes on either the writers' or coachs' polls.

Posted by hopeless pedant | September 9, 2007 5:26 PM

SLC, the problem with the 4 team playoff is this: right now there is no NCAA Bowl subdivision championship game. The BCS champion is not an the NCAA national champion. To add an extra game, the NCAA member schools have to agree to let there be an extra game. The schools who are currently frozen out of the BCS aren't going to go for that.

Kent, the problem as I see it with a 16 team playoff is this: the smaller conferences have no incentive to agree to a 16 team playoff that simply takes the 16 top BCS ranked teams and leaves their conference champions out. Even the BCS conferences are going to insist that, if the Big East Champion happens to be number 18, they will still be in the system. Furthermore, the big conferences are simply *not* going to give up their conference championship games.

Fred, the current NCAA system is like having the NFL without a unified league structure where the divisions had a considerable degree of independence and kept their revenues. The NFL is unified, divisions are not independent (they can be reshuffled) and there is revenue sharing. Better to have playoffs? Better for whom?

Posted by William | September 9, 2007 5:36 PM

William:

So you create a playoff where each of the BCS conferences takes their top 2 teams to the round of 16 and the final 4 spots go to the winners of the top four non-BCS conferences. There are currently 5 non-BCS conferences, only 4 of which are worth even talking about.

Conference USA
Mountain West
WAC
MAC

The 5th non-BCS conference is the SunBelt Conference which has no teams that have ever broke the 25 in the history of the conference.

There are only 4 remaining independents: Notre Dame, Army, Navy, and Western Kentucky. Forget them. Notre Dame can join the Big-10 where it belongs anyway as it is located in almost the exact geographic epicenter of the Big-10. The service academies can join the Big East to bring them up to 10 teams and Western Kentucky? Who cares.

To make things even more interesting we could devise a system like european soccer where if a league is slacking off (like the Big East a few years ago) then they stand to lose their 2nd spot to a mid-major league based on some sort of criteria. So if say the Mountain West takes off they could move up into the major category.

Anyway, it's fun to play football God, isn't it?

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 6:12 PM

Kent,

I actually *like* the idea of relegation, but I can't see why conferences would agree to it.

While you may be right that there are only 4 minor conferences worth considering (I guess mentally I was counting the independents as a 6th minor conference) . . . I don't think that the athletic directors of those conferences or the presidents of their member institutions are going to see it that way. You couldn't promise the BCS conferences 2 spots each to sweeten the deal for them (and even if you did, that would further dilute the playoffs). It would have to be the 11 conference champions plus 5 at-large teams.

Yeah, it is fun to play football God (my personal sport change would be make all the 16 seeds in March Madness have play-in games) but when I try to put myself in the shoes of the Athletic Directors of the big and small conferences, I find it hard to see how they will get to an agreement. Their fundamental interests are at odds with each other. The big conferences have their own TV deals and cozy relationships with the minor bowls. I just don't see how it makes sense for them to scrap that competitive advantage and compete with the other schools on a more or less equal playing field.

Posted by William | September 9, 2007 6:45 PM

Re Kent from Waco

If the 16 team playoff system were instituted such that the first two rounds were played before the bowl games, that would leave the 4 team bowl playoff system that I described. The problem with this is that the teams in the final 4 would have to play 2 extra games. On the other hand, this would preserve the present bowl system which, like it or not, is ingrained in college football. The chances of eliminating the bowl system are slim and none and slim is on the bus headed out of town.

Posted by SLC | September 9, 2007 6:51 PM

The problem with this is that the teams in the final 4 would have to play 2 extra games.

Actually the two semi-final losers would only play one extra game unless you are contemplating a 3rd place consolation game between those two as in the NCAA basketball tourney. I am not. Only the teams playing in the national championship game would be playing 2 extra games.

Frankly for what is probably a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity happening during the Christmas break between semesters I fail to see what the issue is. I guarantee you the players, coaches, fans, and college administrations raking in the cash for such a game will not be complaining. The basketball teams actually lose much more class time as the March madness happens right during the spring semester.

Posted by Kent from Waco | September 9, 2007 9:23 PM

William,

The lesser conferences are in for a BIG guaranteed paycheck in the playoffs. Probably bigger than the minor CarQuest or Motorcity Bowl payout that their champion is currently guaranteed. The question is whether 3 of the major conferences are willing to scrap their conference championship games, which pay 100% to the conference. If the SEC wins both of it's first round playoff games, for example, then they make back the loss of revenue and each team advances to the next round to collect what would be their bowl purse. If one of the these two teams advanced to the semi-finals, then the conference generates more money in the new system as it's 2 teams would in effect play at least 5 bowl games. If one or both of the teams gets upset early, however, the major conference would be shit out of luck.

The minor BCS conferences like the Big East would benefit in that they are currently underrated, and their second place team is frequently skipped over by the major bowl games. Also they don't have a championship game. (neither does the PAC 10 or Big 10) So for the Big East, they gain simply by getting two teams guaranteed in.

The real problem is the Big 12. They suck and they have a championship game. They are most likely to lose one of their opening round games. If I'm a weaker major conference, I don't take the gamble. I think the ACC is also in this boat.

8 teams have to lose in the first round. If we assume that the 4 minor conference teams all lose, but are happy to get the paycheck, then that leaves 4 major conference teams that must go home. The question becomes how do you make up the lost revenue to these teams? I like the idea of letting them go to bowl games. Just as if first round losers in March Madness could join the NIT tournament.

Posted by Just Karl | September 9, 2007 10:16 PM

Peteraues report concludes ... mich and n.d. really 2-0 and never had better teams!

Posted by centrist | September 9, 2007 10:28 PM

Re Kent from Waco

"Actually the two semi-final losers would only play one extra game unless you are contemplating a 3rd place consolation game between those two as in the NCAA basketball tourney. I am not."

This is true only if some regular season games are eliminated. All teams getting to the final 4 play two playoff games and both teams getting to the final 2 play 3 playoff games with the teams getting to the final 2 playing 4 playoff games.

Posted by SLC | September 10, 2007 10:20 AM

I'd go back even further with Michigan's trouble with the spread offense, or indeed any mobile quarterback. It doesn't even matter if they're a particularly GOOD mobile quarterback. I remember a bad Illinois team beating us at home in 1992, largely due to a long-forgotten mobile quarterback.

And, every single impact player on defense is gone. Skill position guys get the hype, but if you give up 600 yards a game, you're not going to come close to winning.

I hope they do go 2-10. Blow it up and start over.

Posted by dday | September 10, 2007 2:31 PM