AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2008 > January > 08 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USNever will be a perfect bowl system
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Furman Bisher
Yep, it’s somewhat unseemly when a football team that lost two games to teams in its own conference is saluted as champion of the nation. When the one team with only one defeat (mainland) sails through the Orange Bowl with gusto, unceremoniously disregarded by those in the BCS power seat, probably because its coach is seriously overweight. (Just kidding. The rest of this is quite serious, though.) Is this all it takes to arouse the dander of a college president near to us, Michael Adams of the University of Georgia?
Is this new? Has this not been going on for years? Has there ever been any foolproof system of determining a national college football champion? And the answer is no, and there never will be.
You begin with the first flaw in the Adams Plan: “A committee would select and seed the top eight teams.”
You can stop right there. How is the committee selected, and by whom?
Next, when you speak of “seeding,” once again you get into the area of individual judgment. There is no equalizing the Western Athletic Conference and, say, the Big Ten or the SEC. Take the start of the season, when Appalachian State threw the system into turmoil, beating Michigan in Ann Arbor. Then later lost to two teams in its conference, Wofford and Georgia Southern. After which Michigan beat Florida in a bowl game.
The idea of creating the perfect bowl system is a pipe dream. What these people can’t come to understand is that football is not a tournament sport. No more than the Triple Crown of thoroughbred racing could be turned into a three-day tournament.
There wasn’t an “official” national champion until 1936, when Minnesota won the first Associated Press poll. Various and sundry individuals had created “systems” earlier, dating back to the Helms Foundation in 1883, but nothing drew such general acceptance as the AP poll.
Now, as for the BCS, Adams says, “I’m just convinced that it’s not working and that it’s not going to work.”
Of course not. His forward stance is suspect since his own Georgia team, which also lost to two teams in the SEC, was not among the chosen, a point which he judiciously speaks to. So, why not? Should not the president of a university speak out for the school he represents? No doubt he would not have been so agitated had Georgia not been passed over, nor would he have attracted such attention had he been speaking as president of Auburn or Vanderbilt, just to pick a couple of names. He drew a lot more attention than had he been speaking from the United Nations.
Speaking from one man’s podium, just how much longer can the college football season be spread out? It opens the last week of August and now runs into the second week of January, by which time I’m past caring who is the BCS champion. (After all, Georgia did beat the only unbeaten team in the mix. Declare yourself the champ, Michael.) Worn down to the tread from an overdose of so-called “bowl” games, truly nothing more than postseason stuff. After Michigan beat Florida, giving Lloyd Carr a gracious exit, my enthusiasm waned. Which is neither here nor there.
One of Adams’ observations I do subscribe to: ESPN has too much power over the bowl system. The sports network tells the BCS when to roll over and when to bark. But then, ESPN pays its dues and feeds the colleges’ kitty.
I veer from my original track here, that there is no perfect playoff system, and that to stretch the season into the icy shadows of January is no cure for anything, other than another big dollop for the budget. I can’t see any committee of college presidents buying into that, if their basic obligation is to education. And shouldn’t it be?
Permalink | Comments (76) | Post your comment | Categories: Furman Bisher, Tech / ACC, UGA / SEC
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
By naplesdawg
January 8, 2008 9:26 PM | Link to this
Adams is right! It doesn’t work and we hear about it every season…so fix it! 8 Teams sounds about right to me!
By Bish is the Master
January 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Link to this
You are the ONLY sportwriter this paper has that has a pair. Adams proposal reminds me of the time Vince the Prince had the refs suspended after the mutts lost to Tech. Nothing but sour grapes.
By hotrod
January 8, 2008 9:37 PM | Link to this
I want a playoff real bad, but the timing for adams to bring this up is terrible,all this does is make us look bad in the national media,thanks again adams, if you want to do something to make dawg fans like you name the field after coach dooley, DOOLEY FIELD AT SANFORD STADIUM,nuf said.
By bulldog rick
January 8, 2008 9:53 PM | Link to this
nuf said hotrod,your a genius
By kgod999
January 8, 2008 10:02 PM | Link to this
i dont agree with this column. look, college football is the FARM SYSTEM of the nfl, lets STOP fooling ourselves. the colleges and networks are making a killing monetarily wise, so,stop all this nonsense about college sports. it aint college sports, its professional sports without the athletes getting a check to go with the room and board.
By Bob
January 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Link to this
Adams is a tacky disgrace. I think his proposal is worth looking at, but it ain’t going to be accepted. He is grand standing again and makes UGA look foolish. Is this some new found awakening? I think not. If he feels so strongly about this he should have spoken out in 04 when our fellow SEC team on the Plains got the real shaft.
For the sake of decency, he should have at least waited a day so LSU would not have to share the spotlight with this pompous a*. I guess those boos he got at the Superdome last Tuesday night drove him to try and get the support of the alumni. Sounds an awful lot like Bill Clinton.
By Alan
January 8, 2008 10:35 PM | Link to this
College athletics, in particular, Division I football, are out of control. The players are athletes first — and students only to the point that they can stay academically eligible. There are huge differences between schools in terms of recruiting budgets and perks (for the athletes)that build in competitive advantages that ensure that schools like USC, Ohio State, Texas, Michigan, UGA etc continue to dominate. Many schools (such as Michigan for example) have entire cirriculm designed specifically to keep athletes eligible while other schools (such as Georgia Tech, Duke, Vanderbilt, etc.) maintain academic standards across the board — regardless of how big you are or how fast you can run the 40. Adding the big money from college playoff system (and the $ would be huge) would only corrupt college athletics more. To my knowledge the US is the only country where the universities have their own sports franchises. With university presidents like Adams — who focus on the wrong things and ineptly to boot — no wonder we are continuing to fall behind most of the rest of the developed world in academic achievement.
By reality check
January 8, 2008 10:39 PM | Link to this
The BCS is not working. Talking heads at ESPN and other media types are voting in a popularity contest that means little or nothing when the title could be decided on the field.
Naysayers who say it can’t be done should be reminded that history is comprised of impossible things that couldn’t be done but were.
From that perspective fixing the abomination that is the BCS is relatively easy. All that has to happen is for the college presidents to start thinking logically and take back the conrol they have abdicated to ESPN and Fox.
Mr Bisher, if you think football started in August you need to get out more and pay attention. The athletes today train year round.
By Drexel Gal
January 9, 2008 2:10 AM | Link to this
I think of professional boxing in the 1970s: Norton beat Ali, Ali beat Foreman, Foreman beat Norton. Who was best?
Think about that … and then remove your shoes.
Now you get it.
By Peyton
January 9, 2008 2:13 AM | Link to this
I will give you all the perfect system
8 team playoff 6 BCS Conference Champions 2 Highest ranked Non-BCS Conference Champions. (yes, Hawaii and BYU)
Any team can win every year, does not diminish regular season as teams must do their jobs to win their respective conference. The conference champs are already in BCS bowls so this has no effect on the importance of bowls.
By Peyton
January 9, 2008 2:18 AM | Link to this
Also, Adams showed a lack of tact in his presentation of his ideas, but don’t lose sight of the message because you don’t like the messenger. He is right, no matter what anyone feels about “sour grapes.” The most interesting thing is that FOX and the NCAA aren’t pushing this harder as they would get to televise two more high stakes games under the 8-teamer.
By BeachGaBulldog
January 9, 2008 2:24 AM | Link to this
I have never recognized this BCS crap, because IT HAS NEVER WORKED! Georgia is #1, and nothing will ever change that. I don’t give a damn about what a bunch of fat, biased, old losers think who should be at the top of the polls. Common sense is Georgia-2007 National Champions. END OF STORY!
By surfrider
January 9, 2008 3:15 AM | Link to this
Great Blog Furman. If this passes then the controversey expands from say 4 teams to 16. Eventhough a playoff sounds good to mean some other things may need to be worked on first. Starting with evening up the competition in the schedules. Maybe only have one patsy per year and make sure we are comparing apples with apples the best we can. Second, I would do away with this current bowl arrangement where the same people/teams/conferences go to the same places every year. Nobody could be picked until after every game in regular season is played. Or at least rotate the alliances where say the SEC could play in Rose Bowl and ACC every now and then and vice versa. Yes money will drive everything but this BCS system is not working and a playoff system is not organized yet but if no bowls are tied in and no bowl can name teams until after the regular season then maybe it could lead to a playoff system. The downside would be the panic among the conference, teams and bowls of not having a slot and possibly a bidding war but there could be a way to organize this chaos on a ranking system and rotating basis. Maybe we need to tweak the ranking measures again.
By Stop!!!
January 9, 2008 3:58 AM | Link to this
Dooley field, are you serious? I understand that dooley getting booted by adams was a shock to many people and left some outraged, but I think we should all be able to agree that adams made the best decision for UGA athletics. Damon Jones has cleaned up dooley’s mess as athletic director and made UGA into the most profitable athletic department in the country. Which means new facilities and a higher recruiting budget for the football team. Dooley was a decent coach, who took credit for Erk Russell’s brilliant work. Stop bringing up dooley’s name and realize he wasn’t that great!!!
P.S. If you never went to UGA you have no place in the debate about Dooley and Adams!!!
By Larry
January 9, 2008 5:08 AM | Link to this
Mr. Bisher,
I disagree.
No need to complicate something so simple.
Trim the regular seasons back to no more than to 10 games as they were not too long ago (More emphasis on acedemics, not multiple games).
Stay out of August and mid January by playing more games in early and mid December (great football weather in the south and before the NFL playoffs).
10 regular season games, plus 1 conference championship game, plus 1 bowl game for all non championship bowl qualifiers is 12 games max!
In an eight team playoff in the “championship bowl series”, only 8 teams would play 12 games, 4 teams would play 13 games, and only TWO TEAMS IN THE NCAA WOULD PLAY 14 GAMES! Repeat—only two teams play as many as 14 games of which they’d gladly do, so stop harping on some many athletes playing more games when in actuality, LESS games are playe throughout the NCAA than today!
Yes, the selection would always be controversial, but certianly this could be addressed by any—more than double digit IQ—committee such that the ability to crown a true, proven National Champion is far greater than this silly guessing game today.
Now, how hard was that?
“The Championship Bowl Series”
By T
January 9, 2008 6:03 AM | Link to this
I agree with Bisher. A committee should not choose the teams… I think the minimum entry requirement should be conference champion, dont win your conference, you dont play for the title. I dont like the BCS, I do prefer a playoff, Georgia may have won it all, or may have met USC and got beat, we dont know. Adams showed a total lack of class with the timing of the letter, things like that usually back fire in time.
By WFC
January 9, 2008 6:35 AM | Link to this
Eight teams in the championship bracket (7 conference champs + one at large.) The Supreme Court can supervise this for all I care. Don’t seed. Match ups are random.
Keep other bowls as they are. Everyone has some fun.
There will always be complaints.
By GT Athletic Supporter
January 9, 2008 6:46 AM | Link to this
Think you’re the best sportswriter around but disagree with you on this one. 1.Start the season a week early (minimizes conflict with school time)
2.Play a regular season of 11 games
3.Selection Committe selects best 8 teams to participate in playoff
3.Begin playoffs the third week in December at fields of current top Bowl game sites. (Other bowls select from remaining teams and play at about same time.)
Playoffs extend into first week in January. (Students out of school during playoff time eliminating conflict with schoolwork.) Rotate game sites among current BCS Bowls.
Share T.V. and other playoff revenue with all D-1 colleges with more going to playoff teams(after allowance for reasonnable expenses). Helps compensate for loss of revenue associated with loss of 12th game. Some form of revenue sharing formula would need to be devised to ensure fairness.
Have heard too much about impact on players. In terms of conflict with class, basketball players have it much worse - mid-week travel and games,long season,etc. In terms of physical impact, most FB teams back-off of heavy contact sessions as season progresses. It’s not a big deal particularly when you consider the excitement players will feel playing for a National Championship, only 8 teams would be playing more games, and the majority of teams would be playing less with the reduction of the 12th game.
By WFC
January 9, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this
The only thing wrong with this year’s system were the “made for TV” bowls… Rose and Sugar. UGA should have played S. Cal and Illinois should have played Hawaii. LSU and OSU won their powerful conferences and deserved to be in the championship.
By flip
January 9, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this
Hey Stop!!!
Do some research before you type your drivel.
The Georgia AD is Damon EVANS, not Damon Jones.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 7:19 AM | Link to this
The problem, I hate to say, is that we need conference championships to determine who advances to the playoff. There are currently 12 Div 1A conferences with only 8 playoff slots. Someone must decide who goes from the 12.
Now, a few Div 1A conferences are doormat conferences. Most of the teams playing in them are traditional whippin boys for more powerful teams. Seeding for playoffs could be determined in part by SOS. So the current BCS polling would have to be used, replacing the human polls with a selection “committee” made up of college AD’s, WRITERS from regional papers across the country (not broadcast journalists) who did not graduate from a Div 1a school, and former players who didn’t play for or graduate from div 1a schools.
The committee would only have to seed teams from the 12 div 1a conferences and then would only seed conference champions. Surely that would be better than what we have now. Make the committee’s names and votes public. Make them publish nationally the rationale behind each pick. In otherwords, make the selection process transparent.
Old guys like Furman Bisher just don’t want change. He is right that we can’t have a “perfect” system. Nothing that humans do is perfect. But he suggests we can’t even have a better system. He is flat wrong.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 7:32 AM | Link to this
WFC,
LOL. LSU won a conference. OSU won more games in theirs. They didn’t play a conference championship. If the SEC didn’t play one, then Georgia and LSU would have been tied in their record. OSU was allowed entrance into the NC based on the biased voting of media and coaches who applied a different standard for them as opposed to the one used to reject Georgia…that they didn’t play/win their conference championship.
Also, OSU’s conference has only one other powerful team…Michigan. The rest of those schools have struggled to win games for years. That conf. has not been powerful for years.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this
On the issue of the current bowls…a national championship playoff would only INCREASE the ratings for the bowls. Regional pairings have meant money for the local economies. However, if a team like Hawaii travels so well, what makes the bowls think playoff teams won’t? College football fans are the most rabid out there. They will follow a team that has a shot to win the NC.
The Rose doesn’t want to play ball. Fine. Let them keep doing what they are doing. Choose another bowl to be in the playoff brackets. If a conference doesn’t want to add a CC, then let them play in one of the other bowls or the Rose. Let the AP or Coaches crown them NC. No one will take them seriously.
We can keep the rest of the bowls. They will be as relevant during a playoff as they are today.
By JustMe
January 9, 2008 8:00 AM | Link to this
Bisher -
There may be no ‘perfect’ system, but any playoff would be better than today’s money grabbing system. All bowls (including the BCS bowls with the exception of the NC) are all about making money. They really couldn’t care about what teams deserve to be there. And therein lies the problem for the sport, the fans, and the players.
We deserve better. We at least deserve an 8 team playoff. The only change I would make to Adam’s suggestion is to simply use the top 8 teams from the BCS ranking. Don’t put this decision in the hands of humans that are apt to play favorites, or be bribed, or whatever. Leave the decision in the hands of an impersonal computer that simply crunches the numbers in whatever fashiion we tell it to.
If all 8 teams come from one conference, then so be it. If all teams come from the State of Wyoming (for example), then so be it. We should just have the 8 strongest teams, period, without any bias.
If any ‘committee’ gets their hands in the pot, we will automatically introduce bias - and I would hate that.
By GT76
January 9, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
Why not play throughout December? That is when the semester is over and there is no impact on studies.
Have the first round with 4 games the 2nd Saturday of December (don’t use bowl games for these games, play them on campuses).
3rd Saturday of December play 2 games to decide the final two. (use a couple of second tier bowls or play on campus, people will turn out.
Play the championship like we do now using a rotation of the other BCS bowls. Let non-contenders continue to be invited to bowls as a reward for a “good” season. Probably weed those bowls down to 10-12 instead of 15-16.
I know the logistics for short term travel would be tougher but it’s doable. There are people who can expedite the logistics and travel and ticketing. The TV money would be huge because viewership would go up.
The 8 teams would be selected like they are now with a coaches poll, the harris poll, computer rankings, and input from an NCAA committee similar to the basketball system.
The season would be over by January 8th when most schools are back in session. Don’t tell me something like this won’t work. It will!
By hallcountyobserver
January 9, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
i definitely think a new “system” has to be found but it makes me sick to hear this pompous a*, michael adams, thinking that just because he has decided that it is time, then everybody else will follow his lead. he never has and never will be as important as he thinks he is.
By GW
January 9, 2008 8:44 AM | Link to this
Any suggestion to trim the regular season will never work. The 12 games will be needed to more accurately determine the playoff teams. I will suggest no 1-AA schools allowed on a schedule if you want to qualify. Also the schools need the money from 12 games to pay for volleyball, golf, equestrian, swimming and all other nonrevenue sports. This is more complicated than the infatuation with a football national champion.
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
With all due respect Mr. Bisher but I honestly don’t care if your enthusiasm wanes in January. In my opinion, college football is the greatest game on the planet and I could watch it year round if it was on. I don’t think I’m alone either. I surmise that’s why there’s so much growing interest over the last decade or so in all the ancillary aspects of the game (i.e. recruiting, spring practice) when the regular season is over.
By MisterT
January 9, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
I would love to see it finished on the field, but I like Mr. Bisher don’t see it happening.
Let’s address a couple of things:
1)A number of you have suggested reducing the number of games in the regular season to just 10 or 11 at max to allow for time to accommodate your “pipe dream.” You have to consider what that will do to the budgets of the other 111 or some odd number of schools that will not be in the final eight. I don’t think you are going to get a consensus of presidents that are willing to cut their guaranteed athletic budgets just so the roughly 1/3 schools that will actually compete for the eight spots each year can pad theirs. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.
2)The four BCS bowls have already lost some their luster because they will never even have the chance of being “The NC Bowl” on a given New Year’s Day. Granted the BCS Championship game is being rotated to allow each bowl city to host “The Game” as an additional source of revenue, but some of the luster of the bowl game itself has been lost. If you do a plus three system, it will drag at least two weeks past new years. That will really knock the shimmer off the bowl games.
3)Scheduling: Many of the faithful already schedule vacations around the bowl season. The lay off between the regular and bowl seasons allow for planning of these trips. Maybe I am the only one, but I really don’t see ever being able to schedule two or three traveling vacations with less than one month notice. I foresee a drop off in average attendance. Playoffs work in NCAA FCS & the NFL because they are held in home field environments that allow for local attendance. That will not be the case in the proposed Plus 3 or even utilizing current bowls as “play-ins” to feed the BCS bowls.
Sorry to be a downer on this proposal. I like you would love to see it answered on the field, but I really just don’t see it being financially feasible. The Networks (ESPN, FOX, etc) would definitely benefit because more people would probably tune in on TV because they just couldn’t afford to travel. The games would probably garner more viewing because they would actually mean something. Even the games that your team wasn’t playing in would mean more because they would effect who you are playing.
By Just Sayin'
January 9, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
Can someone correct the SEC Championships Football line at the Official Athletics Site of the Georgia Bulldogs? Georgia claims conference championships from 1942 to 1982 (10 in all), and there wasn’t a conference title game in those years.
If OSU’s conference championship this year doesn’t count becuase their conference doesn’t play a title game, none of those 10 count for UGA either.
By ET
January 9, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
I agree with Mr. Bisher. Michael Adams issued this proposal with all the forethought of Mark Richt’s call for the famous unsportsmanlike display after the first TD at the Florida game. I suspect if Georgia lost the first championship game after implementing President Adam’s proposal, he would immediately call for a change to a “best of three” series for the final two teams. Whatever glimpses of merit his proposal may have were eclipsed by his complete disregard for LSU’s and the SEC’s well deserved opportunity to celebrate the championship under the current flawed-as-it-may-be system. He is more suited for the small college, out of the limelight presidency at Division III Centre College from whence he unfortunately came to Athens.
By MisterT
January 9, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
I have not heard anyone mention this. Adding the BCS NC game already eroded the bowls this year. If we had not added this game we would have had dropped Illinois and Hawaii and the four BCS bowls would have had much more satisfying matchups.
By kool$kat
January 9, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
Thanks to Mr. Bisher for a great article. Many of you readers are missing or ignoring his points.
Problems with suggestions from those wanting playoffs:
Committee picks the playoff teams
Who picks the committee? Who oversees the committee to make sure ESPN or others don’t influence the selections?
Use BCS rankings to pick teams What? Use the system that we all agree is flawed at best? We’ll have an annual uproar still, over what teams were left out. The BCS is based partly on polls, which are opinions of writers and coaches that do not have time to watch every team every week. Who does? NOBODY - thats why the polls aren’t perfect! Early season polls are pure hype! Late season polls are based on who beat the ranked teams in the earlier polls, so the late season polls are wrong as well.
Use conference champs I like this one the best IF we ever do have a playoff. You have to make the regular season count for something. Still, conference size and strengths differ greatly. Who seeds the teams? A committee? (See above) And do ya’ll realize UGA would have been left out of the tourney this year under this plan? Maybe thats why I like this one best…
Bisher is right, there is no perfect plan.
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
ET, a couple of things:
I’ve not historically been much of a Michael Adams supporter following the debacle he orchestrated with regards to Vince Dooley’s retirement but I think he’s spot on this time.
By DirtyDawg
January 9, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Agree, agree, agree, no way you’re gonna have a system that doesn’t stir up controversy…and I wouldn’t first jump into an eight-team elimination bracket that would, in effect, bring an end to the bowls - a system that has meant a lot to college football for a lot of years. If you must, go with four - after the bowls - a semi-final and a final, and be done with it…or leave it the way it is. After all, it’s almost as much fun, and certainly a hot topic of conversation, to be able to say, ‘we shoulda, we coulda and we woulda’, as it is to say ‘we did’. And a lot more fun that ‘we got beat’.
The point here is what in blazes is Michael Adams doing chiming in on this - then again he is nothing if not self-serving and given who he is and how he works I say ‘if he’s for it, there’s something wrong with it. Of course I’m not surprised that Mark Richt has endorsed Adams’ plan, he’s a smart man and has seen what happens to even the most revered of Georgia athletic heads when they dare disagree with King Michael. He’s an autocratic, megalomaniac that sees to it that anybody that isn’t a ‘yes man’ is not long for the program…interesting that Damon Evans hasn’t offered an opinion.
And one more thing, I’m kinda sorry to hear that we’re potential pre-season #1’s…odds are the team that starts there doesn’t end there. Of course, if we go undefeated with this schedule, they ought to just give us the BCS trophy and be done with it.
By MisterT
January 9, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Geoff,
Couldn’t have Adams have made the proposal prior to any of the bowls having been played? Oh yeah, that would have taken a set that he didn’t have. To actually put it out there prior to any of the bowls being played…prior to the blowouts…prior to the pups actually having something to shout about. I am not saying that the dawgs aren’t good, even great at the end of the season, but make the proposal BEFORE it is so self serving. Make it three years ago when Auburn is the one on the outside, or when USC got left out when Oklahoma got in against LSU without wininng their conference.
I understand your point…on the minds of the people. The real point is that it is really only on the minds of USC abd uga fans. And Mr. Bisher’s point was that Adams was only doing make himself look good to the uga alum.
Try to be a little objective here…put yourself/uga in LSU’s position…would you be clamoring for a different system? No you would be defending the current system as having produced the most deserving recipient. Remember we are “fans.” Fan and objective observer are mutually exclusive terms. I won’t define mutually exclusive for you…go look it up.
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
MrT, I was going along thinking that I might further this discussion with you until your last paragraph dripping with condescension. The fact that you’re treating the use of a high school term such as mutually exclusive as something that sets you apart from the general hoi paloi indicates that you haven’t yet attended college let alone know much about college football.
By Grandpa Frenchy
January 9, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this
I am astounded by the pettiness of so many UGA supporters. You want to see class? Mingle with Ohio State fans. After the BCS game on Monday, the Ohio State fans walked out with disappointment but also with dignity. I was in the streets with them. One has to wonder how nasty UGA people would be if the Dogs had lost the Sugar Bowl. People, stop whining. Your team deserves better.
By True College Football Fan
January 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
The issue: find a true National Champion. It’s all about the students, Ulumni, and the supporting Fans, not the Media and their personal thoughts. We DO need a playoff which WILL decide a true Champion.
I’m glad UGA has the people in place to help structure a legitimate problem. I support the entire Administration @ UGA feel fortunate to be a part of something this grand.
P.S. Glad that Georgia didn’t get a chance to play for the BCS Championship, if they would have won, the Title would be in question just like 07’s Champion!
Abraham
By 01' DAWG
January 9, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Great column. I cannot give Adams a hard time for sticking up for his school, however I do find the timing a huge problem. Everyone knows that the BCS is a joke, why not come out with this a few years back? There will be issues with this as we go into the football post season and will continue into next season. I truly feel because of this that the influence to help Georgia in the polls next season will be effected. The “gods” of college football (i.e. ESPN analysts) will overlook Georgia again and again. How many of them picked Georgia to win the Sugar Bowl? Lou “I Hate the SEC” Holtz will never back Georgia nor will Kirk “I love being a homer and USC” Herbstreit. Mark May thought Georgia would get beat by Hawaii. Georgia will continue to be an after thought, mainly due to fans saying every year that this is the year. Look Georgia has not had a NC since 1980, yes Georgia is due, but every year. Maybe if Georgia’s fans were a little more realistic, then they could get more national respect. This will haunt us.
By Rick W
January 9, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
Furman…you’re still alive?!!?? I left Atlanta 15 years ago and expected to see your obit at any moment. Sounds like you’ve acquiesced ($2 big word, Gator fan..ask you UGA employer) at least to non-leather helmets and turf. However, the prospect of even more radical change, like finding out who is the best college football team in America, gives jobs to guys like you to opine ad nauseum and collect checks from dinasaur media midgets. Wake up and smell the new Millennium…it is a brave new world.
By SicEm1987
January 9, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
This is not “sour grapes” by Dr. Adams. It is instead his desire to put a lifelong stamp on everything he touches. If it was sour grapes, it would be far easier for him to change the SEC tie-breaker rules to allow a higher ranked team to play in the SEC Champ game then to change the entire NCAA. By the way, the SEC dodged a big one when LSU won the SEC Champ game. If LSU lost, the SEC wouldn’t have had a team in the NCAA Title game. An LSU-UGA game would have ensured SEC representation.
By JustMe
January 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
I very much disagree with using the conference champions in any form or fashion.
If the goal is to find the ‘best’ team, then only the best teams should be in this playoff. If all of the best teams come from one conference, then so be it.
I very much disagree with any ‘committee’ selecting the teams.
Committees are made of humans. Humans come with biases. I do not want this committee to favor one team (Notre Dame for example) or one conference (Big 10 for example) over another. We should strictly use the top teams from the BCS ranking - or better yet from a computer formula that everyone agrees with. The more that we can leave to an unbiased selection, the better.
I don’t care about the timing.
Personally, I feel that it would be too cool if the college NC game was played right before the professional Super Bowl. However, if the traditionalist want it to end on New Years, I really won’t care.
The number of games played doesn’t matter to me.
Fine. Keep the same number of regular season games played. Then, tack on the playoff games - I don’t care. Honestly, I don’t think that the players would care either. Do you really think that the players would say, “Naw. We have won and could win the NC, but we just don’t want to play any more.” Remember that these are college players and the games are played by them and really for them. The fans are a side effect.
By gdawginkalamazoo
January 9, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
So with this “playoff” system do I need to take a month and a half off from work to attend the games? Not that it is a problem or anything.
This committee, will it include Herstreit from ESPN, maybe that drunk Leprechuan Holtz, and Hawaii Five O Mark May? Those “real men of genius” would definitely have to be included right?
Funny, real funny how UGA is NOW #2 in the country.
How does DIV II work it? I am not that in tune to that level of football other than knowing that Grand Valley State up the road has had great success. Do people complain about being left out of that?
The Sugar bowl really showed the disparity between conferences and schedules. I guess no matter how you strap it up, the 118th SOS just doesn’t play on the mainland. I just feel sorry for Brennan and his diminished draft status. Oh well, it might save some team from another Alex Smith pick so I guess some good came of it.
First A-Rod during the WS and now A-Hole right after the championship game. Should have waited till next week. Let LSU enjoy their championship. What’s the big hurry nothing can change until 2010 anyway. 6 days wouldn’t have hurt.
By naplesdawg
January 9, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Yes his timing was bad…yes his initiatives have not been met very well…but it is time for a change and he is one person that is in a position to start it…the media (espn analysts) will never support the dawgs regardless of adam’s sudden announcement…a playoff is the only way teams are ever going to know who is really the best…the arguments against a playoff are ridiculous…it’s time for college football to catch up to every other sport and be able to crown a champ without controversy!
By MisterT
January 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Aw come on Geoff, that was just a little ribbing. When you figure out where I DID attend college you will most certainly give it back to me. Hopefully good natured. My friends from uga & I are able to do so. It just doesn’t translate well when we read it in this forum. At least I didn’t define terms for you this time. :-)
So please do engage me. Hopefully you did read my final post last week when I did finally get serious. I just couldn’t resist the opportunity to poke you guys a little in what is a very rare instance of vunerability…and likely for the foreseable future.
You have to admit my points with regard to the geographically indesirablity of Adams & others proposals. Neutral sites are good in theory, but expensive for the average fan to attend in multiple.
It has to be either a full blown play off like FCS with home games, or the bowl system. I really don’t think that a blend is going to work out. You will always have as Mr. Bisher points out, a commitee overseeing seedings & matchups. That will be the case even in a full blown playoff.
Admit my pervious point, that remove the BCS Championship game and the four major bowls get much more compelling. LSU is at the Sugar vs OSU for the championship (It was New Orleans turn to host) and Rose gets USC v uga. Only problem is that either WVU or Kansas get left out (more likely Kansas). We would have still had VT and OU, both conference champions I might add that lost in their conference’s host bowl. So much for conference championships.
By Phildo
January 9, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
The phony baloney BCS does it yet again.
Unbelievable. Here’s the answer.
8 top final BCS poll teams to play it off (No freaking committee) Quarterfinals at host school starting the second week of December (Their fans deserve this. Screw the bowls) Losing 4 teams still eligible for other bowls Semi-finals on New Years at 2 bowl sites submitting highest bids to NCAA Final one week later at bowl site submitting highest separate bid to NCAA All other bowls still played for also-rans. This puts more money in the schools, NCAA, TV, and bowl pockets, gives fans a break, and it eliminates the never-ending drama with the current system. Win-win-win-win situation
By Paul Hamilton
January 9, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Again let me state the obvious for everyone. Every sport from high school to the pros has a tournament post season that determines the overall best team. It’s not just football, but soccer, baseball, golf, basketball, etc. Division 1 football is the only sport that ignores this formula. The playoffs seem to be pretty popular at the high school and professional levels, so that basically destroys your first argument that football isn’t a tournament sport. Secondly there is way too much biased on all sides of this sport, its all political. They shouldn’t even vote on the rankings until about 6 games into the season. Lastly if you get rid of the 12th game and match up the eight best teams in the country and let them settle it on the field, it leaves little room for debate on who’s the best team in the country. I honestly cannot see any valid reasons for leaving the system the way it is. I mean how much more exciting will it be to have a playoff than to sit around waiting to watch the national title game. The rest of the bowl games are basically for show.
By Gen Neyland
January 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
Within these pages I’ve spouted the BCS is a work in progress. Bisher is in part, correct, especially on the education part of the student—athlete. But and too, the BCS will eventually move forward. And when it does it still won’t be good enough…I can see it now, 7 teams plus Notre Dame, year in, year out…BTW the Notre Dame inclusion is tounge-in-cheek…
By Georgia...Si.com's Preseason #1
January 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Stewart Mandel just released his early 2008 preseaosn Top 10 and Georgia is #1.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/01/08/early.top10/index.html
By wake up people
January 9, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
Hail to King Bisher…another masterpiece. The real issue is “poll-seeding” non-sense(ex: MY team, SC, was never a top 5 team, yet they WERE for one week. Where is the line drawn between teams 8 and 9 in an 8 team playoff? Solution: all the star athletes should sign with playoff teams (APP State, GA Southern)until D1 fix this mess…..FESS UP!
By Vernon Hardapple
January 9, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this
SicEm- Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to exclude someone from the SEC championship game, not based on their SEC record and their performance on the field within the conference, but overall national ranking.
BeachGaBulldog- Where can I get me one of them there UGA National Champions 2007 shirts? Still sore about your team not taking care of business on the field and not going to the SECCG?
and finally RickW To call UGA a better academic (or athletic) school than UF shows your own willful ignorance.
Overall this stream of posts is pure schadenfreude. Look THAT up sucka.
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this
Ok, Mrt (guess I know what the t stands for now), no offense taken. I’ll try to come back for some more witty banter this afternoon. I’m about to head out to lunch. I’m thinking Mexican today.
By Basil
January 9, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
There is a workable solution.
16 team field, like 1-AA/FCS uses.
11 conference champions get automatic bids, seeded 1-11 based upon a) coaches poll and b) overall record (for teams not ranked)
5 wild-card teams added to the mix. The 5 highest polling non-conference champs.
1 hosts 16, 2 hosts 15, etc.
1st round losers are still bowl-eligible.
Highest remaining seed hosts lowest remaining seed, etc.
Begin the week after the conference championship games, and it’ll all be over 1st week of January.
By MP
January 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
Basil, I like the way you are thinking. If a conference did not have a championship game the conference can elect their representative or take the highest ranking team in the polls.
JustMe, yep you are JUST YOU. Way out in left field
By STEVEN R
January 9, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
its simple, only teams with a conference championship game will be included in the 8 team playoff, if you are not in a conference at all-sorry. that leaves you with about six teams that play championship games, the other two teams are the top two ranked teams that did not play in a conference champ game.
By ET
January 9, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
The beauty of a 16-team playoff would be having 15 of the top 16 teams in the country end their seasons with a loss. That would ensure millions of alumni and fans of those schools more opportunities to berate their coaches and players. It seems a shame to limit this added benefit to only 7 of the top 8 teams or only 50% of the current BCS bowl teams.
By mr steve
January 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this
By OoltewahDawg
January 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
By Just Sayin’
January 9, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
Can someone correct the SEC Championships Football line at the Official Athletics Site of the Georgia Bulldogs? Georgia claims conference championships from 1942 to 1982 (10 in all), and there wasn’t a conference title game in those years.
If OSU’s conference championship this year doesn’t count becuase their conference doesn’t play a title game, none of those 10 count for UGA either.
Just Sayin’, if you will look on the SEC Website, it lists the Conference Champion for all those years you question. Before the Championship Game, the conference champion was determined by who had the best record, and any tie went to the team who had the longest time since going to the Sugar Bowl as the SEC rep. Nobody in DawgNation is saying OSU didn’t win their conference. Most of us will say that the Big 10/11 is a weaker conference top to bottom than the SEC. Right now they pretty much can’t have a conference game because they need one more or one less team in the conference to make it doable, since you can’t divide 11 teams evenly into two divisions.An extra Championship game in the Conferences that don’t have one yet would make the playing field more even going into playoff/bowl games.
By GT80
January 9, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this
Playoffs? Playoffs???
I actually like Basil’s suggestion but it will never happen. I say scrap the BCS as well and just go back to the old Bowl system and then we argue about who gets anointed the AP and/or UPI(is there still a UPI or is it now the USA Today/ESPN)poll Champion. If this was the case, this year we would have had some great bowl matchups, not the crap we had to endure. And maybe FOX wouldn’t be paying a ridiculous fee to telecast 4 bowl games and cause them to last 5 hours to allow them to show so many commericials so they can make their money.
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
Sorry GT80, the UPI is now defunct. I guess that means your 1990 co-championship no longer exists, huh?
By JustMe
January 9, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
MP -
You insult me, but no where do you state where I am out in “left field.”
Care to explain?
By MisterT
January 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
Basil,
16 teams? FOUR ROUNDS?! 1/4 of a season extra for the top two teams?
11 Conference Champions?
Please tell me you are not seriously putting the CUSA, MAC, MWC et al on the same level as the champions of the SEC, PAC 10, ACC, Big 10/11, Big 12, or Big East?
A lot of those conference Champions won’t even be ranked in the Top 25!
And exactly how do you break your new format to the bowl community that has been a MAJOR source of revenue for D1 football for 6+ decades?
Don’t come back with: “shorten the season.” or “work within the bowl system for neutral sites.” I have already rebutted both of those arguments.
See my earlier post regarding multiple neutral sites and shortening the season.
BCS flawed as it is is still better than what we had prior. We had teams on the outside looking in every year. We always have. Regardless o your proposal for a play off, we will always have teams left out. Perhaps even more.
By JustMe
January 9, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
Someone please explain to me the logic of allowing “conference champions” in a playoff? Why would you do this?
Not all conferences are the same at all. Some are weak year in and year out. Some are strong year in and year out. Some are strong one year and weak another year. Why treat all conferences the same every year?
If the ultimate goal is to find the ‘best’ team for our NC, we should select only the ‘best’ teams for the play off, right? Doing this is fair to all, including the independent schools.
By Sharonda
January 9, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Yo GeoffDawg, how was lunch? Did u gorge your fat-a* and eat a plate load of refried beans..I’m sure the offfice appreciates when you return and grace them with your smelly a*…next time try a salad
By EasyCharlie
January 9, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
… Da Bish is right, but so are his detractors above: College football is out of control, and the TV and a few schools are reaping big bucks. Scholarship isn’t there, anywhere — including the schools mentioned by a few above. These kids are going to “school” just for a chance to grab the brass ring — a big pro contract. But that’s the way it is, and always has been, with (maybe) a few exceptions.
Also — bowl games are fun. Fun for the fans to go to, fun for the rest of us to watch. And great for the communities that sponsor them. So, having said that, here’s an idea: return tothe challenge game that used to be around when college football was in its infancy. Go through the bowl series, and then rank the teams as best we can, AND THEN let any #2 team that feels slighted challenge the #1 team for a winner-take-all game!
Will that decide anything? Probably not, but wow, would it be fun!
By GeoffDawg
January 9, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
Sharonda, are you as pretty as your attitude suggests?
BTW - when you exercise regularly, you can afford to eat Mexican sometimes. Just because you have cottage cheese for lunch doesn’t mean that it’s not also on your thighs.
By Tdog
January 9, 2008 4:49 PM | Link to this
Just shorten the season 10 games at most.Force every confrance to have a championship game. Take the winners of SEC,PAC 10, BIG 10,ACC,BIG 12 ect,the highest ranked, top 8 teams and play it off,if Hawaii is the #8 team they get to play ect.Something has to be done about ND we can’t have them not in a confrance.We need to negate the big 10 pac 10 lobbing commitee ESPN. They are BIAS……..
By Tdog
January 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Hey yall we are about to find out just how scared the pac 10 dodged GA and the Big 10 are of playing the SEC.Just think what could have happened this year if we had a playoff, It could have been UGA vs LSU for the national championship. The big 10,pac 10 know this will happen and they can’t stand the thought of it. big 10, pac 10 are not strong enough to have two teams playing each other for NCG.
By Fit To Be Tied
January 9, 2008 6:28 PM | Link to this
Fans/alumni make a deal with the university to use school name and stadium for a negotiated price.
Fans hire administrators, coaches & players (4 years max eligibility).
Have four (12-team maximum) leagues. Play each other league team once.
1st and 2nd place teams are determined by won/loss record or for ties, a preference order determined randomly before the season begins. Team 1 of one league plays team 2 of another. These can be set up to provide league rivalries and preferential tie-ins for a bowl that has a quarterfinal game.
7 bowls can be accomodated with the finals and semi-finals being rotated. Semi finals could be tie-in games also if the bowls had preferences.
You get a real champion, alumni/fans get bragging rights, athletes get paid for their efforts and players don’t have to worry about school.
As a result, schools can also continue to follow the same old NCAA rules with student/athletes and work out a championship playoff system without the existing bowl structure.
By ramblin'
January 9, 2008 6:33 PM | Link to this
Great article Furman (not just the GT/Uga thing). You and I go way back. I started on Coach Dodd’s last three teams, and I have admired your work ever since (didn’t like you picking the dogs over us in ‘66). I have long wanted a playoff system. Eight teams is not enough, and so the discussion continues. Was AS ranked about #64 when they beat UM? Sounds familiar. Lets start right there.
By Just Sayin'
January 9, 2008 6:58 PM | Link to this
OoltewahDawg - You sound like a reasonable person, and I respect your post, but in addition to BCS Slave above, you can check the postings for the last three weeks on this site and see plenty of fans who dispute OSU’s conference championship because they didn’t play a championship game.
The Big(11)10 is clearly not a great conference, and LSU, UGA, and everyone except UF/UARK demonstrated (again) that the SEC is the class of college football, but we’ve been way out in looneyville for about a month to take shots at how the BCS worked out.
The only beef anyone should have at this point is that UGA didn’t get to play USC, or at least WVU, to put some numbers behind the claim of “playing the best football in America now”. That rests squarely on the voters and the Rose Bowl selection committee. OSU earned the right to get run over by LSU in the current system.
All of that said: whatever. It’s basketball season…
By Henry
January 9, 2008 7:24 PM | Link to this
I am real old school. I believe the national championship should be awarded after the end of the regular season as was done for a long time. Bowls are played a month or more after the regular season in a places where the distractions overwhelm 18 to 21 year olds. The team in the bowl is nothing like the team that played in the season. College football is an event sport. It is the Florida game, the Auburn game etc.. Each game stands on its’ own. Because LSU is named a national champion is ok and somewhat interesting but Georgia beating Florida and the atmosphere of that game is much bigger deal to me. By the way, I have been to three national championship games. None lived up to a tradional SEC game.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 7:42 PM | Link to this
Just Sayin’,
The ancient history you use to validate OSU’s NC appearance this year is just that…ancient history. It has nothing to do with what the media said over and over and over again in justifying why UGA could not play in the NC this year. They kept claiming that no team who didn’t win a conference championship could be in the NC. Obviously, OSU didn’t play a game the way the rest of the conferences do. My point was there is a big difference between playing a 12th game and winning it and simply having more wins. The “logic” being used said you had to win a conference championship.
In the ancient history you cite, it was all about won/loss record and the opinions of the poll voters. There actually were not conference championships the way we think of them today. If you go by record alone, then Georgia and LSU had the same record going into the SEC conference championship GAME. Only the game…competion on the field…determined the champion of the SEC this year. OSU was just won/loss record.
If one standard is applied to one conference, it should be required for all. As it stands, OSU gets the benefit of not playing that championship game. They are not judged on another week’s performance. And somehow, they remained number 1 even when they didn’t play that conf. champ game the way LSU did. And somehow, Georgia who was ranked 4th got bumped down because they didn’t play that game. Sounds like inconsistentcy. Sounds like unfairness. Sounds like we need a new system.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 7:53 PM | Link to this
Just Sayin’
For the record, and to clarify, I simply see inconsistency. My agenda is to point out the flaws in the BC$. I simply want to pound the drum for as long as I can. It is not “looneyville” to question OSU’s right to play the NC. At least, it is no more looney than seeing a team ranked 4th going into CC’s get bumped because they didn’t play in one. It doesn’t matter that their RECORD was the same as the team who eventually won the champ. OSU didn’t play a CC. They were idle the same week UGA was. They played what most “experts” say was a weak schedule. Yet they were not bypassed in the rankings. They didn’t have to prove their title on the field like teams in other conferences did. That is an inconsistency in treatment of OSU.
If you want to help, pound OSU and that conference to add a CC. Then there will not be a question about their inclusion in future games. Let competition decide the conference in a CC.
By BCS Slave
January 9, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this
JustMe,
I agree that some Div 1A conferences are weak. That’s why we have to have input from other sources to rank the schools. We will never get away from the human element completely. But on the field competition is the best way to cover human mistakes.