College Football

[The Captain]

It's time once again, to talk college football ladies and gents!

To get the ball rolling:

1. Who should play for the national title?

2. Does the BCS system have any value at all? What should be used instead of it, or should it remain?

3. Ty Willingham was just fired from ND, so this question is twofold:
- Did he deserve to get fired?
- Is ND out of touch with the current climate of college football, where just about every team has down years and super powers don't exist as they once did?

4. The "Big Schools" get all sorts of special treatment in college football, what can be done to level the playing field? Or, is that fine that they do get automatic bowl bids and TV contracts?

Take care all.

[Strider]

1. Who should play for the national title?

Personally, I feel that if Auburn puts together a second convincing win over the Tennessee Volunteers in the SEC Championship Game on Saturday, they should have the inside track for the #2 BCS ranking. Even if Oklahoma rolls over Colorado (and they probably will), it's still just Colorado. It won't help the Sooners' strength of schedule any, while the Tigers should get some notice for beating the same good team twice. They say nothing will probably change if both OU and Auburn win, but you can always hope.

2. Does the BCS system have any value at all? What should be used instead of it, or should it remain?

Every year brings a new reason why the BCS is a sham. Last year, it was Oklahoma playing in the title game instead of USC, even after a beatdown by Kansas State. One or two years ago, it was Florida State playing for the title instead of Miami, even though the Seminoles had lost to the Hurricanes earlier that season. I'll be very disappointed if Auburn doesn't play for the title this year.

I'd like to see a system in which 24 teams are involved. Yeah, there's a lot of logistic problems, but work with me. It'd work like NFL playoff brackets, with the top two teams in each (8 in all) get first-round byes, and each conference champion from the SEC to the Sun Belt would get at least a first-round bye. Also, it'd make for some interesting matchups, and a chance to hype the whole thing like Selection Sunday in college basketball. It'd be possible to use the BCS computer system as part of gauging who belongs where, as well as the polls. You can find more information on that here. (http://www.livejournal.com/users/striderx284/166442.html)

3. Ty Willingham was just fired from ND, so this question is twofold:
- Did he deserve to get fired?
- Is ND out of touch with the current climate of college football, where just about every team has down years and super powers don't exist as they once did?

No, I don't think he deserved to get fired. The Fighting Irish have been sliding for about a decade now, and I don't think you can pin the letdown on just one person. Willingham is a good coach, as evidenced by his work at Stanford before leaving for South Bend, and it takes a lot of patience to turn most programs around nowadays. Rest assured, he'll get another job somewhere very soon.

As far as Notre Dame's place in the modern college football world, it's tough to say. Yes, just about every team has hills and valleys, and you wonder if the Irish understand that. If I remember correctly, only two teams have been to a bowl game -- not major bowls, just ANY bowl -- every year for the last seven or eight years: Virginia Tech and Boston College. That's a testament to their longevity, and proves that staying at the top of your game is very difficult with so many big programs fighting for their place in the big money picture.

4. The "Big Schools" get all sorts of special treatment in college football, what can be done to level the playing field? Or, is that fine that they do get automatic bowl bids and TV contracts?

The only thing that really can be done to level the field is to take the reins from the hands of big university presidents. As long as they run things, nothing is going to change.

I've always been a fan of the underdog where college football is concerned, and I hope that Utah can hang on to become the first mid-major to qualify for a BCS bowl. Two or three other teams deserve a chance, too, but they won't get it. Rest assured, if it takes place, I'll be more than happy to watch Louisville and Boise State (as much as I hate them as a Fresno State fan) clash in the Liberty Bowl. It'll likely be better than any other bowl game this year, including the national title game.

[The Captain]

I had a feeling this would be right up your alley!

"I'd like to see a system in which 24 teams are involved. Yeah, there's a lot of logistic problems, but work with me. It'd work like NFL playoff brackets, with the top two teams in each (8 in all) get first-round byes, and each conference champion from the SEC to the Sun Belt would get at least a first-round bye. Also, it'd make for some interesting matchups, and a chance to hype the whole thing like Selection Sunday in college basketball. It'd be possible to use the BCS computer system as part of gauging who belongs where, as well as the polls. You can find more information on that here."

I like that idea as well. Honestly, the NCAA Hoops postseason is infinitely more entertaining because so many teams have a halfway decent shot at getting to the title.

Take care all.

[Strider]

And like I said, conference championships will mean something. I mean, Oklahoma got crushed by Kansas State last year in the Big 12 title game, and still played for the title while the Wildcats got a consolation BCS bid. How much sense does that make?

Imagine. Somehow, Colorado pulls off the stunning upset and wins the game on Saturday. Boom, they're in the postseason. Probably as a #4 seed, but it's still one home game. Oklahoma is knocked down a peg, likely to a #2 or maaaaybe a #3 seed, and someone like Louisville takes over the last #1 seed. Two mid-majors as top seeds? Hey, that's just like St. Joe's and Gonzaga snagging top seeds in the NCAA basketball tourney last March!

Teams like Boise State and Louisville are good for the game, they just need to realize that. Everyone loves Cinderella, right?

[thornwithin]

1. There should be an 8-way free for all between OU, USC, Auburn, Utah, Boise St, Cal, UT, and Louisville. 176 men enter, one man leaves.

barring that, it should be Auburn vs Utah, OU vs USC, and the winners play each other.

2. The BCS system is crap. It doesn't actually solve the "problem" of not having a playoff, and it's really just a circle-jerk between the TV networks and the major conferences. It meaninglessly elevates 4 bowl games above the rest, and causes stupid matchups (like a Rose Bowl with neither pac-10 nor big 10 reps, or Utah vs *PITT* when Utah deserves to play another top-4 team) just for the sake of money.

3. I think that 3 years is not long enough for a coach to prove himself in college ball, where he will inherit the previous guy's players. I also think that expecting perfection is unrealistic in any sport. Thus, I strongly disagreed with the firing of Ron Zook (esp. mid-season like Florida did). However, for Notre Dame, it seems likely that they made a backroom deal with Urban Meyer and you can't blame them for "upgrading" to a premier coach like him.

4. Everybody gets automatic bowl bids - if you break .500 in a season, you're basically guaranteed to play somewhere. If you're referring to the BCS system, I explained my thoughts on that already. I think that the bowl system should return to the old way, that way they will choose the schools that either have (a) tons of alumni support, or (b) are really hot that particular year. The fact is that TV and bowl organizers are playing to an audience - there has to be people interested in watching a game, in order for them to produce it. This means that even though one team is 6-5 and another is 11-0, the Insight Bowl might be better off with the 6-5 team because it has a better fan base. You can't change economics, no matter how "unfair" it might seem.

Bottom line is the only problem with the current system is the "automatic" bids to BCS bowls to the conference champions - forcing teams to play in 3 meaningless games and one semi-meaningful game, just to make more money, is stupid.

[The Captain]

I think, with the dawn of Satellite TV, TiVo and Direct ticket packages, where you can view any game you want to now, the idea that networks need to keep Notre Dame and schools of that type on TV is moot since now if people want to watch they can, but they have choices and can watch another game. I really do believe that the power of choice thanks to Satellite will eventually level the playing field.

Network TV is slowly losing its power and stranglehold on sports and the only way it's going to make a comeback is if it updates its way of doing business. I think it's about time that teams play in major games in primetime based upon how they're doing in a given year, NOT on who they are.

It really is so odd to me that Notre Dame can have a policy of basically, "What Have You Done For Me Lately" with coaches, yet NBC still commits to show their games despite subpar seasons. Shouldn't that policy hold true for everything, or else, why is this double standard allowed to continue?

Take care all.

[Strider]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Notre Dame suffer the same fate as post-Frank Solich Nebraska. His last season in Lincoln, the Cornhuskers went 9-3, not too shabby at all. It wasn't enough to save his job, though, and they replaced him with the coach of the "stupidest team in America", Bill Callahan. So what happened?

He installed the West Coast offense, it failed, they tumbled to 5-6, he called Oklahoma fans a "bunch of hillbillies", and the Huskers got drubbed 70-10 by Texas Tech in the worst loss in school history. I bet they're dying to bring Solich and Eric Crouch back.

[thornwithin]

and now that the BCS is official, i've gotta sound off even more.

Only one of the 4 BCS games ended up with an acceptable matchup, imho. I can accept that OU and USC will play each other, since they've been the top 2 for the whole season. There's really no way out of Auburn and Utah getting screwed out of a chance for national champion.

But the least they should have done is have Auburn and Utah play each other. Virginia Tech and Pitt are certainly quality teams, but does anyone really think they can stand up to Auburn or Utah? Now we're still going to end up with 3 undefeated teams (4 if Boise State wins - and they actually got screwed the worst in the whole deal).

Also, in my mind, Cal getting shut out of the Rose Bowl is a travesty. I've always thought that any year in which the Rose Bowl is not Pac-10 vs Big 10 is horrible, but I really feel bad for Cal because they ended up in the frickin Holiday Bowl. They performed just as well as the 3 major undefeateds this year, except for the inexplicable last-second loss to USC.

Basically the problem with the BCS is the automatic berths to conference winners - sometimes a given conference has a down year (i.e. the Big East), and there's no reason that a #23 team should automatically get into a top-4 bowl game, and force a #4 team to have a cakewalk matchup and not be able to prove how worthy it really is.