If you haven't heard about Bernie Machen's plight to win over some of his colleagues with a plan to bring us closer to playoff don't waste your time. No sooner than Machen presented his idea to his SEC brethren was he bullied into "staying the course."
To have someone like the President of the University of Florida on the side of the fans was a major coup, especially considering he won the national championship and "the system" worked for him. If anyone was ever to open their minds and listen to ideas about a college football playoff it would have been Machen's.
But what transpired in Destin can only be described as an old-fashioned beat down. Quoting Machen following the SEC meetings, "I'm done."
And that will certainly squash any further talks about a playoff system for the near future. Machen who now has changed his position to work within the framework of the current BCS structure is a major blow to a playoff. Considering a new deal for postseason is on college football's agenda over the next year or so, there's now little chance we'll have a playoff as we look ahead to the next decade.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of Machen's loss is that he was actually for a more equitable system for sharing revenues. Perhaps that's why the SEC was so quick to put him in his place?
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Final 2006 D-I19 Register
Although, the Register didn't produce the same #1 versus #2 matchup as the BCS, it's actually a great outcome for the Register considering that team was Michigan. There was enough controversy this year that a number of teams could have played in the title game based on a flawed system, so we'll take that as a successful first season considering some revisions need to be made for 2007.
I recognize some of the rankings seem a little out of place. One of the things I have already revised based on trial and error from my first season that will be implemented in 2007 is decreasing the number of points added under the win category. There was too much of a gap between a win versus a top 10 and top 25 team just as an example. It resulted in skewed results the further down the line you go. For example, my alma mater - Middle Tennessee - should have been ranked a little lower and a school like San Jose State should have been ranked a bit higher. The change will place more of an emphasis on earning points based on the opponent played.
Final Rankings
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Florida
4. Oklahoma
5. Notre Dame
6. USC
7. Wisconsin
8. LSU
9. Auburn
10. Boise State
11. Louisville
12. West Virginia
13. Wake Forest
14. Tennessee
15. Texas A&M
16. Texas
17. Arkansas
18. California
19. Rutgers
20. Oregon State
21. Virginia Tech
22. Boston College
23. Nebraska
24. BYU
25. Penn State
26. Purdue
27. Maryland
28. Navy
29. Georgia
30. Hawaii
31. UCLA
32. South Carolina
33. Clemson
34. Missouri
35. TCU
36. Georgia Tech
37. Houston
38. Kentucky
39. Texas Tech
40. Central Michigan
41. Oregon
42. Minnesota
43. Arizona
44. Ohio
45. Washington State
46. Cincinatti
47. Iowa
48. Florida State
49. South Florida
50. Kansas State
51. Michigan State
52. Arizona State
53. Alabama
54. Indiana
55. Washington
56. Western Michigan
57. Nevada
58. Rice
59. Oklahoma State
60. East Carolina
61. Pittsburgh
62. Miami
63. Troy
64. Syracuse
65. Connecticut
66. Tulsa
67. Middle Tennessee
68. Wyoming
69. Virginia
70. Northern Illinois
71. Arkansas State
72. Ole Miss
73. Toledo
74. San Jose State
75. Air Force
76. Bowling Green
77. Vanderbilt
78. Kent State
79. Utah
80. Baylor
81. Kansas
82. Iowa State
83. Akron
84. Marshall
85. Miss. State
86. North Carolina St.
87. North Carolina
88. Southern Miss
89. Colorado
90. Fresno State
91. Army
92. Tulane
93. Temple
94. Idaho
95. Florida Atlantic
96. Louisiana
97. Northwestern
98. Stanford
99. San Diego State
100. Buffalo
101. Illinois
102. North Texas
103. New Mexico
104. UAB
105. Eastern Michigan
106. UCF
107. SMU
108. Ball State
109. Louisiana-Monroe
110. UTEP
111. Colorado State
112. Miami (OH)
113. New Mexico State
114. Utah State
115. Memphis
116. Louisiana Tech
117. Florida International
118. UNLV
119. Duke
I recognize some of the rankings seem a little out of place. One of the things I have already revised based on trial and error from my first season that will be implemented in 2007 is decreasing the number of points added under the win category. There was too much of a gap between a win versus a top 10 and top 25 team just as an example. It resulted in skewed results the further down the line you go. For example, my alma mater - Middle Tennessee - should have been ranked a little lower and a school like San Jose State should have been ranked a bit higher. The change will place more of an emphasis on earning points based on the opponent played.
Final Rankings
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Florida
4. Oklahoma
5. Notre Dame
6. USC
7. Wisconsin
8. LSU
9. Auburn
10. Boise State
11. Louisville
12. West Virginia
13. Wake Forest
14. Tennessee
15. Texas A&M
16. Texas
17. Arkansas
18. California
19. Rutgers
20. Oregon State
21. Virginia Tech
22. Boston College
23. Nebraska
24. BYU
25. Penn State
26. Purdue
27. Maryland
28. Navy
29. Georgia
30. Hawaii
31. UCLA
32. South Carolina
33. Clemson
34. Missouri
35. TCU
36. Georgia Tech
37. Houston
38. Kentucky
39. Texas Tech
40. Central Michigan
41. Oregon
42. Minnesota
43. Arizona
44. Ohio
45. Washington State
46. Cincinatti
47. Iowa
48. Florida State
49. South Florida
50. Kansas State
51. Michigan State
52. Arizona State
53. Alabama
54. Indiana
55. Washington
56. Western Michigan
57. Nevada
58. Rice
59. Oklahoma State
60. East Carolina
61. Pittsburgh
62. Miami
63. Troy
64. Syracuse
65. Connecticut
66. Tulsa
67. Middle Tennessee
68. Wyoming
69. Virginia
70. Northern Illinois
71. Arkansas State
72. Ole Miss
73. Toledo
74. San Jose State
75. Air Force
76. Bowling Green
77. Vanderbilt
78. Kent State
79. Utah
80. Baylor
81. Kansas
82. Iowa State
83. Akron
84. Marshall
85. Miss. State
86. North Carolina St.
87. North Carolina
88. Southern Miss
89. Colorado
90. Fresno State
91. Army
92. Tulane
93. Temple
94. Idaho
95. Florida Atlantic
96. Louisiana
97. Northwestern
98. Stanford
99. San Diego State
100. Buffalo
101. Illinois
102. North Texas
103. New Mexico
104. UAB
105. Eastern Michigan
106. UCF
107. SMU
108. Ball State
109. Louisiana-Monroe
110. UTEP
111. Colorado State
112. Miami (OH)
113. New Mexico State
114. Utah State
115. Memphis
116. Louisiana Tech
117. Florida International
118. UNLV
119. Duke
Ranking Methodology
The emphasis of the Ranking Methodology is two fold. First, it's designed to be simple. Second, it's a points system that's based on the ranking of an opponent at the time the game is played and the points gained for winning at home or away. Points are awarded for each game (unless a team loses to a I-AA school). The difference is you gain more points based on two categories.
The first category comes from assigning each team a numerical value of points based on their current position out of 120 teams (this includes Western Kentucky as they make their transition to I-A). For example, playing the #1 team in the nation would give a team three points; playing #50 would give a team 1.75 points.[1] This serves as the strength of schedule component. The points range between .025 to 3 points based on the ranking of the opponent.
The second category comes from adding points for winning a game. Obviously, your points accrue more rapidly for winning games against opponents from the first category above, because the value of playing the #1 team in the nation automatically gives a team one whole point more than playing the #40 team, for example. On top of that, points are also added for winning games under the following situations:
- 7.0 points for a ROAD win against a Top 10 team
- 6.0 points for a HOME win against a Top 10 team
- 5.5 points for a ROAD win
- 5.0 points for a HOME win
- Losing to a I-AA school results in zero points being added for that week.
Following is an example. Team A (ranked #10) is on the road against Team B (ranked #43). Team A wins the game.
First Category of Points: Team A receives 1.925 and Team B receives 2.75
Second Category of Points: Team A earns 5.5 points for the road win.
Final Points total: Team A earned a total of 7.45 (5.5+1.925) while Team B earned 2.75 (all of which are based on the strength of their opponent). Had team B won they would have earned a total of 8.75 (6+2.75), so there is an emphasis on winning games against teams with higher rankings.
[1] To understand how these values were assigned all 120 teams were assigned their reciprocal and that number was divided by 40 or 1/3 of the number of teams. So, the #1 team would have a value of 120/40=3. The 120th ranked team would only have a value of .025.
Debunking Arguments Against a Playoff
Since the first controversy involving the Bowl Championship Series (BCS)[1], University Presidents and Chancellors have continued to refute the viability of a playoff for Division I-A. Below, we examine most of the stances that have emanated from the Presidents and Chancellors, how they refute themselves, and why their argument has never resonated with many fans and athletic administrators who see the current system as inadequate for crowing an undisputed champion. Before addressing these issues let me first say that academics should always come first over athletics for institutions of higher learning. Academics is the cornerstone of our society. With that said, there is no evidence to suggest a playoff for Division I-A would be a detriment to student-athletes.
Impact on Academics
Issue: One of the first arguments Presidents toss around is the effect a playoff would have interfering with the academic calendar – particularly during the time when final exams take place at most Universities.
Observation: With any problem, there is a solution or work around that will accommodate most of the issues. Any number of scenarios could be examined to ensure games are not taking place during exams. But let’s be honest. Most programs that make a bowl game practice during this period anyway, so what’s the difference? NCAA basketball programs participate during this period as well, so why aren’t we concerned about their academic welfare? Even if the decision were to begin a three-round playoff after exams during the third week of December the national championship game would be played the same week it was played in January 2007. Furthermore, NCAA Division I-AA conducts a 16-team playoff that runs through most of December. According to a study conducted at UNC-Charlotte, graduation rates at I-AA schools indicate no correlation to its success on the field whereas I-A schools substitute academic success for athletic achievement.[2] What should we conclude? Authors of the study emphatically state the bowl system provides no academic benefit – and in fact – should be scrapped and modeled in favor of the I-AA playoff system. Although the study was conducted prior to the BCS, the issue at hand is debating a bowl system versus a playoff based on correlations to academic achievement.
Basically, if I-A football players aren’t graduating at a higher rate than their I-AA counterparts how can anyone argue academic benefits with the current bowl system? Ironically, their a plethora of reasons why academic achievements are lower at I-A schools that relate to the prestige, money, noteriety, NFL, and public exposure less common to the I-AA athletes yet Presidents and Chancellors ignore these pressures on the young men playing college football at the highest level and instead argue that a playoff would negatively effect them. Call me cynical, but something tells me they don't exactly have the best interest of the student-athlete in mind on this issue.
Length of Season
Issue: Usually, the next argument relates to having to expand the season into January and consequences of adding more games.
Observation: In a - sort of - up yours to alumni and fans – Presidents approved the recent expansion from an 11-game schedule to a 12-games and supported the addition of a fifth BCS bowl game that extends the season into the second week of January. Not much else you can say about that, but every fan and member of the media should reject this as an argument for not having a playoff when the Presidents supported these changes that are in direct opposition to what they said they believe. Unfortunately, the addition of an extra game for Division I football programs signifies that we’re moving further away from a playoff than closer to it.
Impact on Regular Season
Issue: Opponents of a playoff have argued to their blue in the face that a playoff would devalue the regular season. They say the regular season is a 12/13 game playoff that makes college football better.
Observation: The problem with this position is that it fails to look at the facts. If a postseason were done right it would actually complement the regular season. By done right, the Register believes the playoff should take the form of the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams. If anything a stronger argument could be made that the BCS has devalued every game except one - that being the #1 versus #2 matchup that the computers concoct. Unless you're an LSU fan raise your hand if you enjoyed this past season's BCS games. Probably aren't a lot of you out there.
So, why include every conference champion? First, it lends value to ensure that the regular season is not compromised by a playoff. Yes, that would mean teams from C-USA, the MAC, Sun Belt, etc., would get one automatic bid, but let's be honest. It's the prospect of one of the non-BCS schools knocking off a Goliath that makes the NCAA basketball tournament's first round so exciting. It's the Boise State beating Oklahoma that would lend credibility to both the regular season and the idea of representation from every conference. It's also why the regular season wouldn't be devalued, because Ohio State would much rather face a #15 or 16 seed Central Michigan in the first round than be faced with the prospect of playing a school like Boise State had in 2006 that; hypothetically, would have been seeded around #10/11 or even a team like Florida who might have been the last team to get an at large in 2007 and be saddled with a similar seed, for example. Ohio State definitely doesn't want to have to face an SEC school in the first round, so the value of being the higher seed would be enourmous. Speaking of your five at-large teams, they would almost always come from a pool from the top 10 teams in the country. Over the past five years only one team would have received an at-large bid in a 16-team playoff with more than two losses and that would have been either either Florida or Illinois this year (depending on which ranking methodology chosen to make the selection) and only a few have had more than one loss. That means two losses for almost every team is an elimination. And three losses would most likley guarantee exclusion from the 16-team playoff unless you can win your conference title. And how many of the BCS conferences produce a conference champion with three or more losses? It doesn't happen often although Florida State did win the ACC with three losses a few years ago. At any rate, the regular season would still be critical to ensure first; a spot in the playoff and then second; the highest seed possible. This means a regular season just as exciting as we have now that doesn't end with a thud like we get with our current postseason structure.
History and Tradition
Issue: During sworn testimony in front of Congress, NCAA President Miles Brand stated he believed academics was the primary issue for many but not for him. For Mr. Brand, it’s more about maintaining the history and tradition of the bowls.[3]
Observation: If there is any valid argument for keeping the bowl system as it is, it certainly is this one. College football has banked its entire existence on the history and tradition of its programs. We can’t lose sight of that fact. However, are we not an intellectual society that can find a combination of both values…an objectively/equitably-determined champion while also maintaining the preservation of the values and tradition of college football? The most puzzling thing to me about this argument is the resistance to admit there’s a way to create a playoff that includes the bowls. The argument that a playoff would devalue the remainder of the bowls is one that again falls short for fans and athletic administrators. Assuming that’s true hasn’t the one versus two BCS championship game already devalued every other bowl game? The logical response here is if you believe one you have to believe the other. Either bowl games are devalued by a championship game or they aren’t regardless of how you come to creating the championship game. Bowl games for teams not playing in a BCS bowl, the national title, or a playoff for that matter is and always has been a reward for those programs. That wouldn’t change if a playoff were implemented. As a matter of fact including the bowl games in the playoff would actually make those bowls more valuable rather than less important. As for the Rose Bowl, they allowed for the tradition to be changed when they agreed to be a part of the BCS structure. They have already prostituted themselves to be a part of the current system. They can't go back to being virgins now. The changes they’ve had to incur wouldn’t be any more vile under a playoff than they've already accepted. Case in point, how many Big Ten vs. Pac 10 matchups have they had since they signed on to the BCS?
[1] The NCAA maintains a running list of BCS controversies on their website. http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/story/8975902
[2] Bowls versus playoffs: The impact on football player graduation rates in the national collegiate athletic association
doi:10.1016/0272-7757(96)00002-7
[3] Congressional Testimony during BCS anti-trust hearings http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju89198.000/hju89198_0.HTM
Impact on Academics
Issue: One of the first arguments Presidents toss around is the effect a playoff would have interfering with the academic calendar – particularly during the time when final exams take place at most Universities.
Observation: With any problem, there is a solution or work around that will accommodate most of the issues. Any number of scenarios could be examined to ensure games are not taking place during exams. But let’s be honest. Most programs that make a bowl game practice during this period anyway, so what’s the difference? NCAA basketball programs participate during this period as well, so why aren’t we concerned about their academic welfare? Even if the decision were to begin a three-round playoff after exams during the third week of December the national championship game would be played the same week it was played in January 2007. Furthermore, NCAA Division I-AA conducts a 16-team playoff that runs through most of December. According to a study conducted at UNC-Charlotte, graduation rates at I-AA schools indicate no correlation to its success on the field whereas I-A schools substitute academic success for athletic achievement.[2] What should we conclude? Authors of the study emphatically state the bowl system provides no academic benefit – and in fact – should be scrapped and modeled in favor of the I-AA playoff system. Although the study was conducted prior to the BCS, the issue at hand is debating a bowl system versus a playoff based on correlations to academic achievement.
Basically, if I-A football players aren’t graduating at a higher rate than their I-AA counterparts how can anyone argue academic benefits with the current bowl system? Ironically, their a plethora of reasons why academic achievements are lower at I-A schools that relate to the prestige, money, noteriety, NFL, and public exposure less common to the I-AA athletes yet Presidents and Chancellors ignore these pressures on the young men playing college football at the highest level and instead argue that a playoff would negatively effect them. Call me cynical, but something tells me they don't exactly have the best interest of the student-athlete in mind on this issue.
Length of Season
Issue: Usually, the next argument relates to having to expand the season into January and consequences of adding more games.
Observation: In a - sort of - up yours to alumni and fans – Presidents approved the recent expansion from an 11-game schedule to a 12-games and supported the addition of a fifth BCS bowl game that extends the season into the second week of January. Not much else you can say about that, but every fan and member of the media should reject this as an argument for not having a playoff when the Presidents supported these changes that are in direct opposition to what they said they believe. Unfortunately, the addition of an extra game for Division I football programs signifies that we’re moving further away from a playoff than closer to it.
Impact on Regular Season
Issue: Opponents of a playoff have argued to their blue in the face that a playoff would devalue the regular season. They say the regular season is a 12/13 game playoff that makes college football better.
Observation: The problem with this position is that it fails to look at the facts. If a postseason were done right it would actually complement the regular season. By done right, the Register believes the playoff should take the form of the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams. If anything a stronger argument could be made that the BCS has devalued every game except one - that being the #1 versus #2 matchup that the computers concoct. Unless you're an LSU fan raise your hand if you enjoyed this past season's BCS games. Probably aren't a lot of you out there.
So, why include every conference champion? First, it lends value to ensure that the regular season is not compromised by a playoff. Yes, that would mean teams from C-USA, the MAC, Sun Belt, etc., would get one automatic bid, but let's be honest. It's the prospect of one of the non-BCS schools knocking off a Goliath that makes the NCAA basketball tournament's first round so exciting. It's the Boise State beating Oklahoma that would lend credibility to both the regular season and the idea of representation from every conference. It's also why the regular season wouldn't be devalued, because Ohio State would much rather face a #15 or 16 seed Central Michigan in the first round than be faced with the prospect of playing a school like Boise State had in 2006 that; hypothetically, would have been seeded around #10/11 or even a team like Florida who might have been the last team to get an at large in 2007 and be saddled with a similar seed, for example. Ohio State definitely doesn't want to have to face an SEC school in the first round, so the value of being the higher seed would be enourmous. Speaking of your five at-large teams, they would almost always come from a pool from the top 10 teams in the country. Over the past five years only one team would have received an at-large bid in a 16-team playoff with more than two losses and that would have been either either Florida or Illinois this year (depending on which ranking methodology chosen to make the selection) and only a few have had more than one loss. That means two losses for almost every team is an elimination. And three losses would most likley guarantee exclusion from the 16-team playoff unless you can win your conference title. And how many of the BCS conferences produce a conference champion with three or more losses? It doesn't happen often although Florida State did win the ACC with three losses a few years ago. At any rate, the regular season would still be critical to ensure first; a spot in the playoff and then second; the highest seed possible. This means a regular season just as exciting as we have now that doesn't end with a thud like we get with our current postseason structure.
History and Tradition
Issue: During sworn testimony in front of Congress, NCAA President Miles Brand stated he believed academics was the primary issue for many but not for him. For Mr. Brand, it’s more about maintaining the history and tradition of the bowls.[3]
Observation: If there is any valid argument for keeping the bowl system as it is, it certainly is this one. College football has banked its entire existence on the history and tradition of its programs. We can’t lose sight of that fact. However, are we not an intellectual society that can find a combination of both values…an objectively/equitably-determined champion while also maintaining the preservation of the values and tradition of college football? The most puzzling thing to me about this argument is the resistance to admit there’s a way to create a playoff that includes the bowls. The argument that a playoff would devalue the remainder of the bowls is one that again falls short for fans and athletic administrators. Assuming that’s true hasn’t the one versus two BCS championship game already devalued every other bowl game? The logical response here is if you believe one you have to believe the other. Either bowl games are devalued by a championship game or they aren’t regardless of how you come to creating the championship game. Bowl games for teams not playing in a BCS bowl, the national title, or a playoff for that matter is and always has been a reward for those programs. That wouldn’t change if a playoff were implemented. As a matter of fact including the bowl games in the playoff would actually make those bowls more valuable rather than less important. As for the Rose Bowl, they allowed for the tradition to be changed when they agreed to be a part of the BCS structure. They have already prostituted themselves to be a part of the current system. They can't go back to being virgins now. The changes they’ve had to incur wouldn’t be any more vile under a playoff than they've already accepted. Case in point, how many Big Ten vs. Pac 10 matchups have they had since they signed on to the BCS?
[1] The NCAA maintains a running list of BCS controversies on their website. http://www.ncaasports.com/football/mens/story/8975902
[2] Bowls versus playoffs: The impact on football player graduation rates in the national collegiate athletic association
doi:10.1016/0272-7757(96)00002-7
[3] Congressional Testimony during BCS anti-trust hearings http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju89198.000/hju89198_0.HTM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)