College Football SuperBus!!!!

Ok, so there's a shitton of college football shit, shit!  Here goes...

TCU Joins the Big East

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5862368

I might do a College Football rundown later this week, if not next week, but until then I found this story humorous.

TCU is in Fort Worth, Texas (of Dallas/Fort Worth region fame).  It is WEST of the Mississipi river, usually the indicator of East/West in NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES.

That's enough caps for now.

NCAA Football, week 13, 2010

Even though there is sooooo much more to be discussed regarding the elections (there were many referenda (that's plural for referendum), especially regarding gun rights, sections of the recent healthcare bill, and one pretty large one regarding the possible legalization of a recreational drug; oh, and the democrats picked Pelosi to be the minority leader, that happenned too; and screw governor's races) I think it's time for me to again shift gears and to talk about college football, everyone's favorite subject.

This just in -- the BCS sucks.

I'm not just saying this because Penn State is doing awful this year (well, by Penn State standards), I'm saying this because it is fact.

How is it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/09/AR2010090906372.html?nav=rss_email/components

How is it the NCAA can get away with this?

I realize the specifics regarding this case are vague, but that's precisely what's leaving this player in limbo. I realize the main purpose of college is to provide education.

However, it is clear that in this case, the player will do little else immediately after graduation besides try to play professional football. His jersey wasn't sold for terribly more than it would be worth anyway (ebay that jersey, and it would probably get over a grand). And the NCAA sells his jersey anyway, and keeps all the money from it.

The fact of the matter is the major sports (football and basketball, usually men's but sometimes women's) make a shitton of money for the NCAA and their respective schools. The players, those who produce this money, see little of it.

Assume that a semester at a public university costs $20,000, including everything. That makes a full ride worth $40,000 plus a few field trips. Let's say it's a private university, and everything costs twice as much, that makes it $80,000 the university is giving them.

The NFL rookie minimum salary in 2007 was $285,000, and it has probably risen slightly since then.

Athletics is a field in which there is not much time to make your money. These players are forgoing prime (or developmental depending on the person/position, either way important) years of their life on what amounts to a 4 year internship.

Switching gears, the NFL has also recently stated the season will soon go to 18 games, replacing two of the four preseason games with regular season ones. This kills rookies and fringe players chances of making the team and understanding the game. The NFL would do well to create some sort of minor league to facilitate this development and retainment that they are otherwise sorely losing. The NHL has the AHL, and MLB has the minor league system, hell even the NBA has some semblance of a minor league system in the d-league. The NFL has none of that. They have other leagues that don't pay as much, and often play with very different rules and formats -- The CFL has 12 on 12 football with 3 downs to get 10 yards, the Arena Football League encourages iron-man style play with it's archaic substitution system, and the UFL eschews popular NFL rules such as the tuck rule and a different form of intentional grounding.

The NFL risks collapsing under its own weight if it doesn't make some sort of change regarding this. This has nothing to do with my personal squabbles and boycott of the NFL. If the NFL doesn't amend itself in this way, it can very well lose the relevance it so enjoys -- maybe even people will discover the variety of non-NFL football during a lockout, which could damage its brand (think people discovering faster-paced European hockey with NHL level athletes during its lockout year).

Something's gotta give

-- Knuttel

NCAA Week 2

So the second week of 11 on 11 football has come to pass.

-- Penn State needs to fix the run game somehow. Logic dictates that it shouldn't be Royster, but logic also saw the offensive line pass blocking very effectively. Pass blocking and run blocking aren't directly related, but they're close enough. Against 'Bama, they get somewhat of a pass, but they need to get their ass in gear.

-- Bolden, again, didn't look terrible. However, I get the suspicion that the coaches are unwilling to hand the offense over to him. His offense was very vanilla.

-- Newsome actually looked better than Bolden in the one series he played. The ball was turned over on a wide receiver reverse screen, so we didn't get to see if he could finish a drive, something Bolden struggled with mightily.

-- Speaking of which, Redzone offense sucked. One field goal is unacceptable, regardless of opponent. Scoring 3 points leaves you unlikely to win in any scenario.

-- Does Kevin Newsome have Allen Iverson syndrome? (Practice, you talking about practice? practice? I'm talking about the game!)

-- I see Penn State as a middle of the road Big Ten team this year, though recently they've usually been only upper mid-tier, so that's really not that much of a change. They're clearly not beating either Ohio State or Iowa, and could easily lose to a Michigan or Northwestern. Even an upset to Temple wouldn't be entirely unforseeable.

-- The ACC is looking terrible. Last week Va Tech lost to Boise State, which seemed like it could go either way. But this week Va Tech lost to FCS James Madison, Georgia Tech lost to Kansas, who lost to a 1-AA opponent to open their season, Florida State got trounced by Oklahoma, and Miami lost to Ohio State. Did I miss anything?

-- Virginia held in for longer than expected against USC. They have a shot at beating Va Tech this year for the commonwealth cup.

-- Boise State's victory against Va Tech has been sadly made more unimpressive by Va Tech's loss this weak. It's really a shame you never really know what you're going to get when you attempt to schedule strong out of conference opponents. They attempted to schedule tough and prove themselves, and their opponents haven't bothered as much to do the same. Other big name opponent, Oregon State, lost their opener to fellow mid-major powerhouse TCU.

-- NCAA division 1-A (FBS) needs to get a playoff system. It's not like it takes away the meaning of games anyway.

The Knuttel dissects the first week of the NCAA football season

United States American Football is here, finally (the Canadian Football League has been going since June ... on a related note, already can't wait for the Grey Cup). Once again this means it is time for me to fully dive into the ameteur world of 11 on 11 football; I'll probably watch a few UFL games too, if I can find them, but the NFL boycott is still active (though I have a fantasy football team this year).

Anyways -- I bring to you, dear internet reader, a brief (haha, briefs) summary of the first week of action.

Penn State opened action against Youngstown State, so it was really just a tune up game. However, given certain circumstances, it requires more thought.

Robert Bolden, a true freshman, started the game at quarterback. This is notable for a few reasons -- A freshman hasn't started a game at quarterback for Penn State since redshirt freshman Zack Mills in 2001. A true freshman hasn't started any game for Penn State since Tony Sacca in 1988. What makes it even more remarkable is he did enroll early in the Spring Semester to get more practice (in, I suppose, what has become a more modern form of redshirting). He basically just walked in and took the job.

So how did he do? Well, Youngstown State isn't much of a test, but he never seemed under pressure or forced to make any bad decisions. He did throw one interception on what could be chalked up to a rookie mistake -- he stared the receiver down, who then fell on a curl route, leaving only the opposing corner in the area. We never saw his vaunted speed or athleticism -- I guess a mixture of not calling options to reduce the risk of injury and not seeing a decent pass rush. The Alabama game next week will really tell where he is.

The rest of the team -- defense looked solid (save one mental lapse that resulted in a long touchdown off a screen), so I'm not gonna bother going any further with that. The rest of the offense, however, may have some figuring out to do. The offensive line isn't settled, and it showed in the running game. Even Royster, heir apparent to the Penn State rushing record, looked ineffective for most of the game, though he did have a few good long runs. Blocking was likely a part of it, as the left guard position is still seemingly up for grabs. If Alabama is to be any kind of contest, this needs to get fixed immediately.

Onto the rest of the NCAA, in two games...

Boise State vs Virgina Tech

Boise State once again proves everything, and nothing, by beating a major big conference team on a neutral site. Every single time they line up against a big program, they bring their A-game, and usually come out on top, yet they aren't going to be taken seriously as a national title contender because their week in and week out schedule for the WAC conference is weak. Moving to the Mountain West in a year or two isn't going to help much. Frankly I don't see how it's that much different that Texas getting games against Iowa State and Baylor, Florida getting games against Kentucky and Vanderbilt, but these non-bcs conferences do lack depth at a much greater level.

The thing is, though, any given school has about zero control over how strong their schedule is going to be. You are in the conference you are in, and must play among these teams, regardless of strength, and out of conference games are decided years in advance by AD's. For example, when Penn State signed a deal with Syracuse for a few games, they were a good team. By the time came to play Syracuse, they were at the bottom of the Big East, usually regarded as the weakest of the bcs conferences.

Really, they should just have some sort of playoff to decide the national champion, then we don't have to worry about all this bickering about who could've beaten whom, cos they would've fucking played.

Moving on.

Ole Miss vs Jacksonville State

It is common practice for football teams to pick a decidedly weaker opponent for their first game. Usually they go to the mids and depths of non-bcs conferences, but they also go to div 1-AA (or div 1 FCS, as they now call it, admitting its superior form of selecting a champion). Playing these teams close is usually unforgivable; losing to them ... well, that just shouldn't happen (see Appalachian State vs Michigan). Well, it happenned again. Maybe the team in question wasn't as highly touted as Michigan was (I think they were in the top 25), but they were touted highly enough. In two overtimes they lost to a 1-AA school. They lost to a 1-AA school.

I'm not going to even go into detail on the game, I'm just going to say this much -- I don't want to hear any shit about how tough the SEC is this year. You blew it. Perhaps even for a few years, but hey, you guys can recover. Look at the Big Ten, Michigan lost, and the conference was looked down upon, but now it's looking brighter.

Knuttel Prediction: Last year's freshman sensation, Pittsburgh's Dione Lewis will suck it up this year -- not for any sort of sophomore slump, but rather because he was Lamar Smith-ed. Dave Wannstedt did it again, this time ruining a career before it could even begin. If he gets a good year of rest, he could probably recover, but given the offense, that is unlikely to happen, and Wannstedt will be looking for another freshman sensation to burn out within a year.

-- Knuttel

THE BCS IS DEAD, THE BCS IS DEAD

THE BCS IS DEAD

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/06/report-colorado-to-announce-move-to-pac-10-on-friday/1

Colorado has officially left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. This means Nebraska's bid to leave is very much legit and most of the Big 12 south will vacate to go to the Pac-10.

If the Big 12 dissolves, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 become "super" conferences, the BCS will become very meaningless, if not now, then within a few years at least.

My fear is the BCS may undergo a new moniker, such as its previous incarnations as the Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition, or whatever it used to be.

With these super conferences, and the huge wave of public support in a playoff system though, I think this is at least the path to something constructive.

-- Knuttel

Big Ten continued

So I saw that during a break in Jeopardy, so I had to post it, but alas, I had no time to expound and elaborate. Isn't that what this website is about?

So anyways.

Let's assume that this is it for Big Ten expansion, that no more schools will come forward and join them.

-- An East/West division system is likely. The East will probably be Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue. The West will probably be Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwester, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska.

-- The Pac-10 will likely move in and take a good chunk of the southern schools of the Big12. This will likely spell the end of the Big 12. Given numbers, this means the Big Ten will become the new Big 12.

-- The SEC may also open up to and bid for some of the Texas schools, sensing a conference collapse, and possibly seeking to reunite Arkansas with some of its former conference mates.

-- If no conferences take any further Big 12 schools, the Big 12 itself may seek to re-shift and get some other school to fill the 12th spot, and maintain that championship game. Possible candidates for this include TCU, or possibly even some former Southwestern Conference members. Either the new school will join the Northern division, or Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, or Texas Tech will. I see the former option more likely, from 15 years of playing in these divisions and building up rivalries.

If the Big Ten is not done expanding, this is almost positive evidence that they are also adding Missouri. Missouri seemed like a sure shot to join the Big Ten, and if Nebraska is jumping ship, then Missouri will likely follow. This also means that there probably will be another east coast team to balance out everything geographically. Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn will open the conference to the New York market, and Pitt and West Virginia have geography and historic rivalries with Penn State. They may also contemplate another 2 teams on top of that, making a 16 team super group. The other two teams could really be any I've listed, plus Notre Dame, and maybe even Texas.

If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the BCS will basically become useless. With the BCS useless, Notre Dame will have to join a conference in order to partake in this playoff system and have the chance at a national title.

If the Big Ten and Pac-10 turn into huge 16 team conferences, the SEC and ACC will likely follow suit, absorbing whatever schools are left over from the Big 12 and Big East.

The Texas legislature may be the biggest obstacle here. What power they have over these schools' conference alignment is unclear exactly to me, but they seem determined to keep these 4 schools in the Big 12 together. I guess because Rice, TCU, and SMU are private, they have no control over where they go, but Houston is not, and has not been with these Big 12 schools since 1996. Obviously Texas and Texas A&M are the two big targets here, being the two with the biggest football histories. Texas Tech has had some very exciting recent years, both in record and in play, so they are a target, however the coach responsible for these changes has been fired. Baylor seems like the odd one out. They're a team on the rise, so they may be able to compete in the Pac-10 or SEC. Not getting into one of these, however, basically amounts to relegation, which means less revenue, dramatically.

Notice all of the ifs in this post. This is all one writer's crazy speculation.

Orangebloods seems to be keeping up with this. Considering how theyre affiliated with Texas, I wonder if there's some ulterior motive.

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1092612

-- Knuttel

Big Ten Expansion

It appears the Big 10 is now the Big 12, and the Big 12 now the Big 11, that is until everyone else leaves

http://www.news-herald.com/articles/2010/06/09/sports/doc4c0f8f017a8e2219807698.txt

Conference Expansion: The end of the bcs?

If one were to listen to ESPN, one would assume all is peachy keen in bcs land, that this is the perfect system to last for eons, the constant force (which changes formulas almost every year) by which we decide who our College Football National Champion is.

Oddly enough, the conferences are making it look as if the bcs's days are numbered.

You see, the conferences are the foundation of the bcs. It is the reason there are bcs conferences and non-bcs conferences. To have a perfectly stable Big Ten, ACC, Big East, SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, and Notre Dame is what makes the bcs work as it does. (It is true that about a decade ago, the ACC poached some of the Big East's best schools, but the Big East responded by poaching some of the rising non-bcs talent in the eastern half of the country, and focusing more on becoming a basketball conference).

As we speak, the conferences are out in their meetings, in their own little bubbles, plotting and planning on expansion.

Namely the Big Ten and the Pac-10.

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1090747

It's been common knowledge that the Big Ten has been looking to expand, though they haven't really shown their hand at how or how large. Already, despite their name, they have 11 schools (one can see it in the logo), though current NCAA rules state a conference needs 12 schools to have a conference championship game -- otherwise the conference gives the title away by conference standing, which is outrageous, Penn State has technically been co-champions for both of their Big Ten championships, both with Ohio State, a team that they also beat in both of those seasons.

Alas, I digress. Common sense seems to dictate Notre Dame is a target, seeing as how it almost joined the Big Ten in recent history, has rivalries with many Big Ten teams, and lies in the heart of Big Ten territory (Indiana, on the outskirts of Chicagoland). Simply adding Notre Dame would make it 12, and enable a conference championship game. But Notre Dame likely won't go for this, citing tradition (bs) and playing service academies out of respect (padding the schedule, they don't play airforce though, and have FINALLY started losing to Navy). So the Big Ten will likely target other schools. They can either go east, west, or arguably both.

East-ways they can give Penn State some east-coast company by taking a Big East school -- rumored candidates include Rutgers, Pitt (which would re-enable the fabled PSU/Pitt rivalry), Syracuse, and West Virginia.

West-ways they'll likely target some Big 12 schools, and this is where it gets really interesting. Missouri is all but looking for an excuse to jump to the Big Ten. They already have a rivalry with Illinois in basically every sport, and don't like the Big 12's revenue sharing model, which directs most of the funds to the University of Texas. They can also target Iowa State (to complete the Iowa pair), Nebraska, and maybe even Colorado or Kansas (getting Kansas with Missouri would keep that rivalry intact). They also are rumored to target the University of Texas itself.

This is where the Pac-10 comes in. They are looking to expand eastward, get into some new markets. The link I provided earlier (which isn't as much hearsay as one may believe, I've seen similar info on other sites) shows the Pac-10's plan to annex UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado -- making it a 16 team conference. The six invited Big 12 schools would likely form a division with Arizona and Arizona State, making an inland division and coastal division.

IF something like this were to go down PRECISELY like this, it would effectively end the Big 12 as a conference (though to be fair it's only like 15 years old anyway). The northern teams head east to the Big 10, the southern teams head west to the Pac-10.

The problem is, not every Big 12 school is on board with this.

Texas has no incentive to leave the Big 12, so long as it stays intact. It gets the most money from the revenue sharing model and is still a member of a bcs conference.

Texas A&M may not want to play so many games on the west coast. Already school officials have grumbled about past games on the west coast, and students being forced to return very late. If they were to join the Pac-10, this would be a very regular occurrence. Also, while they are a chief rival of Texas, they may want to get out of their shadow. Alternate plans show this school heading to the SEC if the Big 12 crumbles.

Which brings me to my next thing -- Oklahoma and Oklahoma State may want to also head to the SEC to get out of the Big 12. It would reunite them with fellow former Southwest conference member Arkansas, and would move them away from Texas, who as was previously stated, takes a substantial piece of revenue.

The legislature of the State of Texas may also mess this scenario up, as they may want to keep the 4 Texas schools of the Big 12 together (notice I have never mentioned Baylor until just now). It may also affect the other Texas schools of division 1 football -- Houston, Rice, SMU, TCU, Northern Texas, and UTEP (the first 4 of those former members of the Southwest football conference).

I wonder if the Pac-10 is also looking at the non-bcs risers of late. All of them fit in the geographic region that is either typically covered by the Pac-10, or is targeted by them now. Boise State and Utah being in the former category, TCU in the latter.

So all of this, in the end, focuses on the State of Texas. Why? The same reason Texas gets most of the money in the Big 12's revenue sharing agreement now -- Television.

The Big Ten Network has been a large success for the conference (after a bumpy start getting it broadcast) and has shown an effective way for a conference to monopolize and control the television coverage, and therefore incoming revenue, of the conferences sports, while also giving the conference a way to show it's other athletics which wouldn't usually get televised (soccer, swimming, track, etc). Notre Dame would hypothetically open the conference up to a national audience, though I don't think Notre Dame has the same national pull it had in, say, 1948. Which brings us to Texas. Texas is the second most populous state in the nation (California, the first, is under a pretty tight Pac-10 grip), and thus the target of many of these conferences. Plus it is in the middle of the country, so it's not like the Big East is asking for USC, it's the conference moving either east-ward or west-ward.

The large market is also the reason some of the Big East schools are targets of the Big Ten -- getting Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn would open the conference to either the state or city of New York. Pitt and West Virginia are both geographically closer to the Big Ten and have ties with Penn State.

Anyways -- what does this mean for the bcs?

Well, let's assume the Big Ten expands to 16 schools (what they are is kind of irrelevant, and will just be a large puzzle making excercise for me), the Pac-10 also wants to expand to 16-ish schools so it can compete. The SEC and ACC pick up the scraps of the Big 12 and Big East and also create 16 team conferences (again, I don't really care if the numbers are off by a little). BOOM. 4 Conference champions. 4 team playoff for the national champion -- just like that. Yes, this would likely exclude the non-bcs conferences, in the grand scheme of things the big conferences don't care about the little ones -- Joepa I feel usually speaks out against the conferences out of his own frustration of being continuously left out while Penn State was independent until the 90s (that's over 20 years of putting up with that shit, I don't care if he's 80 something, you have to remember that). Maybe it will force the non-bcs conferences to consolidate into their own bigger conferences -- this would be much easier if the current powers don't jump to higher grounds -- and they can enter into the playoff process. BOOM. 8 team playoff for the national champion. The problem of working around the current Conference format to slide in some sort of national championship is no more.

Expanding the conferences not only makes the "selection" process that much simpler, but it also destroys the historic bowl ties, that nostalgia loosely holds in place. Where does the Cotton Bowl go if the State of Texas is split up? Will People want to see a Rutgers/Colorado Rose Bowl? Sure, they'll probably still exist, but they'll probably have a better chance of surviving as consolation games, and nothing else (though to be fair, when there's like 40 bowl games, they're pretty much all consolation games).

The bcs is complaining about how long and painful a playoff system would be, yet the NCAA is considering adding even more teams to their annual basketball tournament. It's already at 65, which would be about half of Division 1-fbs football.

People must hate that tournament if they have to add even more schools to get people to watch it.

-- Knuttel

The NFL gets a reality check

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/sports/football/25needle.html

In summary, American Needle wants to make NFL apparel. The NFL has an exclusive apparel deal with Reebok, creating the sub-brand "Equipment NFL" (the first step towards my boycott, laid years before). American Needle says this agreement is collusion and therefore illegal; they should too be able to make NFL apparel. Lower courts agree. NFL appeals to the supreme court, stating they should have an anti-trust exemption (MLB has one, no other sports league does) because they are not 32 individual teams, but rather one league. The Supreme Court disagrees and says they are 32 individual teams who sometimes share similar goals.

What does this mean?

It means, potentially, that teams can decide their own commercial ventures, instead of those bequeathed by the league. It means an exclusive apparel deal, like the one in collusion with Reebok, is potentially illegal.

It means, if I happen to end my NFL boycott in a few years, and the Reebok deal is no more, I may be able to purchase a replica football jersey -- I only have a Corey Simon jersey I got when he was a rookie on the Eagles, and a "vintage" Eagles Reggie White jersey, which I may actually suspect is reebok or whatevs (which makes it inauthentic, Eagles didn't have an agreement with Reebok then) but it was a gift.

But perhaps finally this madness will come to an end. I do believe (I say believe because I am unable to actually produce any sort of empirical evidence for this) that the price of NFL team hats (the product market which American Needle wishes to jump into) has risen above the rate of inflation since the deal was struck with Reebok.

Isn't it the goal of a team like the St. Louis Rams to sell more hats or other apparel than, say, the Chicago Bears? How can they do this when the deal is all set up under the guise of the league acting as one.

Try telling the (insert team who lost the Super Bowl last year, or really any team that didn't even make it to the game) that they won the Super Bowl, cos the League won the Super Bowl. It doesn't work like that.

And if the league has an anti-trust exemption, then how come rival leagues have come and gone? The USFL in the 80s, the XFL in the 90s, the UFL currently, and what about all the arena leagues?

I know Paul "I don't care about old player's health coverage and pensions" Tagliabue was the one who signed the deal with Reebok, but damnit if roger goodell wasn't hell bent on expanding it and making sure it stays in place. I mean, Quarterback gets off the field, wants to take his helmet off on the sidelines, has to put on the "new officual quarterback's hat, by Reebok", come one, and it goes down the line of pretty much all the "skill" positions.

It could also potentially mean a lot for the upcoming collective bargaining agreement. What, I'm not sure, since I don't know anything about collective bargaining.

-- Knuttel

ESPN and BCS in bed

Yes, it is true. I do believe that I have written of their partnership in the past, and may have even commented on the "pro-bcs" commentary during the "national championship" as a definite downside.

But now, in what can only be called the off-season, ESPN's College Football live takes shots at bcs naysayers.

Boise State's President outright slammed the bcs in a recent statement. Attacking the notion that "every game counts", he states:

"But how do Boise State’s games count under the BCS when four of the past six years we went undefeated in the regular season, and yet never even came close to having an opportunity to compete for the national championship? How did all of those games, and all of those perfect records, count under the BCS? In fact, in two of those four undefeated regular seasons, Boise State was foreclosed from even playing in a major bowl."

The statement was also wrapped around revenue issues, showing how the Mountain West and WAC (the conference which Boise State is in) have higher TV Ratings, higher rankings, and higher game attendances than the ACC and Big East, yet the ACC and Big East receive 19 Mil in Bowl revenues yearly, The Mountain West and WAC getting 9 mil if they make the big bowls.

This made headlines on College Football live, and instead of having at least a reasonable discussion about the pros and cons of either situation (with or without the bcs), they simply take turns bashing the idea that there could be anything resembling a national champion without the bcs, and come to the conclusion that the President of Boise State must be a lunatic.

Before ESPN, and its family of networks (actually the ABC/Disney family of networks) got their hands on a big portion of the bcs pie, they never made a huge deal about the "awesomeness" that is the bcs, and how we would all be wandering nomads in the desert without its brilliance, guidance, and wisdom. Sure, they were invested in the bowl system, but it wasn't uncommon for commentators to say "hey, maybe the champion should be decided through a playoff, but hey, there's no reason we have to get rid of this great bowl system we have."

They could at least get half way there.

Now they are miles away. The only way this could seemingly get fixed is if legal action is taken. I don't want that to have to happen, because the people who won't read about how bad the bcs really is, are the people who only watch ESPN for their sports news, are the people hate government intervention of any kind (save for their welfare checks). So naturally, they will assume the bcs was given to us by God, and his prophet, Lee Corso, and the government is trying to take away all that is holy in college sports.

Come on, this isn't Europe! We don't have a series of tiered leagues, with a points system tied to relegations and promotions. We don't decide who the winner of a league is by points total at the end of the year (the NHL has the President's trophy, but the winner of that definitely does not always win the Stanley Cup). And perhaps most importantly, we don't have an over-reaching Police State watching our every move and locking us away when we say something benignly offensive to the regime.

Fuck the Queen.

See, say it along with me. It's liberating. And it's American.

Why can't there be a civil debate about how we should go about replacing the bcs (cos anyone with half a brain could tell you having the bcs would be a wrong move)?

http://news.boisestate.edu/blog/2010/05/25/statement-of-boise-state-university-president-robert-kustra-regarding-bcs-revenue-discrimination/

-- Knuttel

Madness? THIS IS MARCH; part 3

My results from the second round:

As one can see, I was actually 8/10 in games where my team had not been eliminated from the first round, and even then, both of the losses were only slated to win that game.

So no further elite 8's lost, etc.

But I wanted to try something else, as I had been indicating in previous posts. I wonder how this coin flipping strategy would work in a smaller field, in a more even field. So I reflipped, using a bracket of lesser quality (who makes sweet 16 brackets anyway?), and thusly didn't care about my own production values.





This time, Xavier does not play the upset champions, and only advances one more round. Cornell becomes the true cinderella this time, crashing all the way to the final four. But in the end, it ends up being number 1 Syracuse vs number 3 Baylor in the title game, both within the top 15 teams in the country. Baylor wins.

Let's see how this turns out.

Madness? THIS IS MARCH!

OK, lame pun aside, I actually decided to fill out a bracket this year for fun, even though I am not taking part in any pools or anything.

I used a breakthrough method that is going to fundamentally change the way everybody looks at the NCAA tournament.

I flipped a coin to determine the winner of each game. Tails is the higher seed because of its slightly higher chance of landing -- the heads side of a quarter is hardly heavier, which makes it barely easier for the quarter to land heads side down.

You see, I don't really watch college basketball -- Penn State, though reigning NIT champs, have never really been able to maintain a decent men's basketball team, though the women had a long string of success which was pulled apart by player-coach feuds and allegations of lesbianism etc. Point is, if you go to Penn State, you watch football, you may also watch basketball, but it sure as hell isn't gonna be Penn State's.

And so here goes the bracket which will change the course of college basketball, if not human history.




Shit yeah, Xavier all the way.
Vermont is this year's Cinderella. You saw it here first.

-- Knuttel

a snack

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=ohlmeyer_don&id=4844048

a little insight on the leach firing. ill probably put something real of mine up later.

the 1987 Fiesta Bowl: the game that changed college football forever

We all know what happenned.

Penn State and Miami met at Sun Devil Stadium in Arizona on January 2nd, 1987. Both teams had gone through the regular season undefeated and were the consensus #1 and 2 in every poll. Despite being largely unfavored, Penn State beat Miami 14-10, by forcing 7 turnovers, 5 of them Vinny Testaverde interceptions (including a timely goal line pick to seal the game).

How did this happen? Why did this happen? What was the result of this?

In the 1986 College Football season, there were 4 major bowl games -- The Rose Bowl, The Orange Bowl, The Sugar Bowl, and The Cotton Bowl. All 4 of these bowl games had conference tie-ins, and thus had to select the winner(s) of whatever conference(s) they were tied to. The Rose Bowl was tied to the Big Ten (which still had 10 members) and the Pac-10. The Orange Bowl was tied to the Big 8 Conference (now makes up 8 of the Big 12 teams). The Sugar Bowl was tied to the SEC. The Cotton Bowl was tied to the Southwest Conference (busted up in the early 90's, 4 teams went to complete the Big 12).

Penn State and Miami, the two teams who went through the regular season undefeated, were both independent at the time. The match-up would be split up if either of the schools decided to accept a berth to one of the four major bowls.

This left two bowls in a bidding war for the rights to play these two teams -- The Fiesta Bowl in Arizona, and the Citrus Bowl (now capitol one bowl) in Orlando. As the two bowls tried desperately to outbid one another for this game, the Fiesta Bowl came up with a plan that has since infiltrated its way into every other single bowl game. They accepted sponsorship, titular sponsorship at that, from Sunkist, in order to pay the sum to host the two teams.

I don't think there is a bowl game out there now that is not sponsored, not even the blandly titled "bcs championship game" goes without a sponsor (it's FedEx this time around).

This idea of pitting a #1 and #2 against each other every year became a popular idea, namely because college football had no playoff system then, and shows no signs of wanting one now. Co-National Champions after both the 1990 and 1991 seasons even further expressed this need to attempt to pit the two "best" teams against one another. The Bowl Coalition was formed for the 1992 season to try and remedy this situation.

The Bowl coalition consisted of six games with guaranteed representatives coming from six conferences -- the Southwest conference, the Big East, the Big 8, the SEC, the ACC, and Notre Dame (yeah, I went there). The Rose Bowl was not a part of this because it has tie-ins with two conferences, as opposed to the one tie-in most of the other bowls have. The Big East, having formed for the 1991 season, had no direct tie-in to any bowl game, but rather was selected much like an at-large team, a system that continues to this day.

Ironically, the Bowl coalition prevented Penn State from a shot at the 1994 season's National championship. Penn State, having recently joined the Big Ten, went directly to the Rose Bowl, leaving also undefeated Nebraska to play someone else. Both teams won their bowl games and finished the season undefeated.

The Penn State snub along with the guaranteed Notre Dame bid (they went 6-4-1 for the 1994 season, got crushed by Colorado in the 1995 Fiesta Bowl) gave the Bowl coalition a short life. It was supplanted by the Bowl Alliance, but that was basically the same thing (though the Southwest and Big 8 conferences were replaced for the 1996 season by the Big 12), the Rose Bowl was still not involved, which left the Big Ten and Pac-10 out of it. Starting with the 1998 season, they finally joined, creating the "bowl championship series" (I suppose the title does not lie, there is a series of bowls, and there must be champions of each bowl game).

Alas, as I began to ramble about the de-evolution/evolution of the division 1 football title, I forgot to mention an important point. As the title game started to become more directly tied to conferences/notre dame, it became important for the independent football teams to join conferences. The Big East added football (it had already existed, though its schools played football independently). Penn State joined the Big Ten. South Carolina joined the SEC. The only "important" independent to remain so was notre dame, who could do so because of special priveleges it had with the bowl system (after shunning it entirely for 50 years).

The 1987 Fiesta Bowl was the last matchup between an independent number 1 and independent number 2. The 1989 Fiesta Bowl also featured an all-independent matchup, though #1 Notre Dame was pitted against #3 West Virgina. Miami (also still independent) was #2, but several factors kept them from playing in this game -- namely Miami had already lost to Notre Dame that season, and Miami as a team tried to personally kill every member of Notre Dame's roster (something you'd think I'd support, but alas,I'd rather pros do it than thugs).

So yeah, Penn State won the 1987 Fiesta bowl, and with it the national title from the 1986 season, but they ended up taking part in an event which forever changed the sport they played.

Good News Everyone: The bsc has made its selections!!!

Let me start this off by stating that I am not pissed that Penn State did not get selected for a bsc bowl. I am a little bit puzzled, but I am not pissed -- Iowa beat them in the head to head matchup, and thus they should go instead.

Now, for an idea of what I think of the bsc, replace "Limp Bizkit" in the following song whenever it comes up.



Now, onto the review of what the bsc has done this year.


-- First off, the Big 12 and SEC championship games became the de facto semi final for the "national championship" game, for some unknown reason besides the fact that Big 12 and SEC fans hype their conferences more than any of the others. I'm sorry there's stuff to do in the rest of the country, I really am, but that doesn't mean you have to take it out on the everyone else.

-- Who's piece of shit idea was it to put TCU up against Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl? The point of having non-bsc conference teams make it to bsc bowls is so they can beat those bsc conference teams. And yes, it can happen, yes, it has happenned. Utah and Boise State have both done it before. So yes, this is a matchup of unbeatens, but the fact that neither of these teams is playing Georgia Tech, Florida, or Iowa (putting them up against an unbeaten Cincy would also be pointless in my opinion) just means that the bsc has nothing but disdain for any and all schools outside of the "big 6" (and really, they hate the big east now too, so maybe the big 5 is better). The bsc's shitty ass futile attempt to de-legitamize any kind of chance that either of these teams has for a national title just further legitamizes the need for a playoff system. Frankly, I think Texas may not even be the best team in the state, I think TCU might be better, but they're not gonna have any chance of proving it. I'd like to say maybe they make this the semi, and they play the winner of the other game, but that would leave out a possibly undefeated cincy.

-- Did Florida really have to go to the Sugar Bowl? I realize the SEC has ties to the game, but the SEC's automatic qualifier is playing for the "national title". That should make Florida up for grabs by any other bowl. Truth be told, the matchup should be interesting against Cincy. Florida's dirty ass defense against Cincinatti's precision offense should be fun.

-- Why does Iowa go to the Orange bowl? This one is completely at-large and completely under control by the entire bowl committee. Ohio State is already going to the Rose Bowl, Iowa can go anywhere. So why not send Iowa to the Fiesta bowl against TCU? Put Boise State in the Orange bowl against Georgia Tech (automatic bid and conference tie in, not gonna make any complaints). It's not like Big Ten teams can't go to the Fiesta Bowl, in fact Penn State (passed over, but whatevs) has a rich and long history at the Fiesta Bowl, including the 1987(?) national championship against Miami.

-- Why is every commentator stating alternative championship scenarios as "if Texas didn't get selected for the national championship game, who should be?" Is it really that safe to assume Alabama is that far ahead of everybody else? If that is the case, just give them the title already and let everyone else play their bowls (it's happenned before, when Nixon screwed Penn State out of a title in '69 and declared Texas the champion after defeating Arkansas -- one of the few things I didn't like about his presidency). Yes, Texas almost lost their conference title game, but they won it, which is what they needed to do to win their conference. You know what, TCU, Boise State, and Cincinnatti also did what they needed to do to win their conferences, and they, along with Alabama, all remained undefeated in doing so.

-- Random thought, since when does winning the SEC put you in the national title game? Yeah, I know SEC teams beat Ohio State two years in a row to win the national title, but those weren't that good of Ohio State teams. They may have won the Big Ten those years, but the Big Ten wasn't very strong those years. Penn State was burdened by Anthony Morelli and Michigan began its tailslide into mediocrity. If Ohio State didn't win the conference those seasons, it would have been the ultimate excercise in futility considering their rosters. And you know what, those two SEC teams, they weren't just SEC teams, they were GOOD teams. It's a very fine distinction in some parts of this country, but it's a distinction that has to be made.

-- If there are 120 teams in "fbs", and it requires 12 teams for a conference to have a championship game, why not have 10 conferences -- 12 playoff spots (2 at-large bids) and make it work with bye weeks -- the NFL uses a 12 team playoff system, I have no idea what the RGFL uses, but that's another matter entirely.

So why does it have to be like this? At least with the old system, we all knew it was sloppy, and it was going to miss chances to name national champions (1994 Penn State Nittany Lions, ahem) but it never went out of its way to proclaim how right it is and how awesome and perfect it is that the games are like this.

Oh, and really don't ever listen to ESPN at all for anything regarding whether or not to have a BCS or any sort of bowl system -- Disney (owners of ESPN) has distribution rights to all but a few bowl games, and as such, stands to lose alot that time of year if anything were to change.

-- Knuttel

post script

-- I was just thinking about how one of the most classic, memorable, enduring moments of college basketball was Villanova's defeat of Patrick Ewing's Georgetown town in the mid-80s, despite being vastly out seeded etc etc; and how a scenario like that could never ever happen in College Football with the system as it is now.

-- Maybe because the field is so evenly qualified this year they should just revert to the older system and have these 5 or so major bowls and just vote on whichever one plays the best. Frankly it makes about just as much sense, and while it doesn't pit 1 against 2, it allows for all the unbeatens to have a shot at the title. Might actually be less chaotic.

-- Side note of additional information -- Cincinnati actually edged out Texas in the computer polls. Thought I'd share that.

-- Joe Paterno was "asked to give up" his voting privelages in the Coaches poll after he split his number 1 vote 3 ways during the season of 3 unbeatens. This was after the "national championship" game "decided" the winner. The bsc will stop at nothing for false legitimacy.

BS "championship" preview before the preview

If anyone is wondering, that stands for "bowl subdivision championship". I think it works better with the letters rearranged like so.

Let's start this off by kicking charlie "Fatass" weiss out the door. His firing really made my extra-high levels of obnoxiousness during the nd/PSU game weekend 2007 really worth it. I recall screaming about weiss' protestant prostituting to some nd alumni who bought me beer the night before as well as many threats of rape, murder, and general mutilation to nd fans attending the game, as well as their extended family.

He was a fraud who could only win with Ty Willingham's players. The only kind of players he could recruit were offensive skill players, wanting to show off in a true pro system by a true pro style coach. A shame you kind of need offensive linemen and defensive players to really pull it off.

I shall also bid farewell to Mangino, the coach at Kansas who matched the schools previous total of bowl wins (3) and won their first orange bowl (they lost to Penn State in their first one, despite a strong effort from future Redskin John Riggins). Apparently he is really mean to his players, and that just doesn't fly once they stop winning for you.

So onto bowls and possible scenarios etc.

One bowl is already entirely figured out -- the rose bowl. Both the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have already declared their winners, neither of whom "have a shot" at the national championship and both shall receive an automatic berth for this game. The ohio state buckeyes won the Big Ten outright, going 7-1 (Iowa and Penn State are tied for second at 6-2), and went 3-1 in their non-conference schedule (a loss to a Pac-10 team). Oregon won the Pac-10 similarly, losing one in conference for an outright berth and losing one out of conference, to Boise State of the WAC. As this post shall not make any predictions, I shall leave this part as is, except one more mentioning of legarrete (sp?) blunt's awesome punching form. I also don't really know if I should pray ohio state doesn't embarass the Big Ten yet again in a bsc game or hope they win.

This leaves 3 proper BSC bowls and the "national championship" game left, 8 slots to fill. Automatic berths will also come from the ACC, Big East, SEC, and Big 12.

The Big East is being decided by a de facto championship game, between undefeated Cincinatti and 9-2 Pitt (one conference loss).

Cincinatti has the opportunity to be left out of the "national championship" game if they win. Pitt has the opportunity to spoil a possible national title for the conference if they win.

The ACC championship game will not send anyone to the "national championship" game, as both teams have at least two losses. The game itself should be good, as this is a rematch from an earlier game in the season -- Georgia Tech and Clemson. The scoring shall be fun to watch, as Georgia Tech is one of the few division 1 teams to run the under center triple option, a very explosive version that can score quickly, and Clemson's Spiller can hurt the opposing team in so many different facets of the game.

The Big 12 championship game features undefeated Texas against 9-3 Nebraska. Texas is being picked almost universally in a landslide, but Nebraska's defense may prove to be a possible spoiler (for both the conference and national title). It's easy to forget that the Big 12 south was weak this year (unfulfilled expecations from Oklahoma and Oklahoma state, struggles by Texas Tech and Texas A&M, and perennially weak Baylor).

The SEC championship game will likely send one team to the "national championship" game. I really don't understand how, but they probably will. Undefeated Florida from the SEC east and undefeated Alabama from the SEC west will face down eachother for this game. Both of these teams are being flat out inundated with praise about how awesome they are, how holy tim teblow is, etc. Let me get this straight. The SEC is not the strongest conference in college football. Having two undefeated teams does not make one the strongest conference. The SEC often plays weaker out of conference matchups than the Big Ten. The SEC east is one of the weakest divisions in college football. Let me ask this -- who in the east had a shot at knocking off florida for the east title? Georgia may be the closest, but making them the fifth strongest team in the whole SEC may be generous. Tennessee may be good in the future, but is a joke. Kentucky periodically rises to mediocrity, but otherwise is a joke. Vanderbilt. Enough said. South Carolina is also perennially mediocre. Even in the west, they're all just a little sub par. I'd like to see Auburn in a year or two though, I like their version of the downhill spread.

So let's assume all goes as planned, I know I said no predictions, but these aren't really mine, just what are pretty universal assumptions.

Florida wins the SEC and goes to the "national title" game
Texas wins the Big 12 and goes to the "national title" game
Georgia Tech wins the ACC and goes to the Sugar Bowl
Cincinatti wins the Big East and goes to the Sugar Bowl ... undefeated
Ohio State won the Big Ten and is going to the Rose Bowl
Oregon won the Pac-10 and is going to the Rose Bowl

This leaves 4 at large bids (which really may split up the Sugar bowl matchup).
The likely candidates will be among the following
Texas Christian University -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Boise State -- 12-0, undefeated, non-bcs
Iowa -- 10-2, Big Ten
Penn State -- 10-2, Big Ten
Alabama/Florida -- 12-1, SEC

If Georgia Tech loses their championship game, they will be 10-3 and likely up for an at-large bid.
If Cincinatti loses their championship game, they will be 11-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
If Texas loses their championship game, they will be 12-1 and will likely be up for an at-large bid.
Virgina Tech, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, Pitt, and LSU will all have 9 wins and be on the periphery of the bsc picture if it goes as above.

Notre Dame is not in the top 50 this year, and thus will not get into a bsc game.

One non-bsc team may have an automatic berth if they ...... jibbrish really. Both TCU and Boise State qualify for one of the automatic berths is what that means.
Only two teams from any single conference can receive bsc berths. This means the loser of the SEC game will likely get a berth, and either Iowa or Penn State will be left out of the bsc picture.

It is VERY possible for either TCU or Boise State to get left out of a bsc bowl game entirely, despite going undefeated with strong schedules.

It is possible, this year, for there to be 4 undefeated teams at the end of the season, breaking the record of 3 a few years back (Auburn and Utah were left out, I believe, and USC won the "national title", against 1 loss, hadn't actually won their conference Oklahoma; I could be wrong).

So how do we fix this?

Well first of all every team needs to be in a conference. THIS INCLUDES NOTRE DAME. The service academies I wouldn't mind giving an exemption to, but they could just as easily join a lighter conference or drop to 1-fCs (the c stands for championship, they're legit there). Army, not too long ago, had a stint in Conference-USA, if anyone cares to remember.

Secondly all "major" conferences need to be expanded to 12 teams and feature conference championship games. In face, all conferences should just be expanded to a size large enough to have a championship game and then have a winner decided that way. I'm really fucking pissed that Penn State's last two conference championships were "shared" with ohio state, even though Penn State won the match-up both of those seasons. Penn State got the automatic berth, but those really shouldn't count for conference titles for Tressel.

The Big Ten, for example, could easily go to 12 teams by adding, oh, I dunno, Notre Dame. Half of their "rivals" are in the Big Ten anyway. Schedule one out of conference each year with USC and have Stanford, Navy, and BC on some sort of shuffled schedule. Wow, did I just fix that? In fact, the Big East could absorb both Army and Navy, now that I think about it. Maybe Penn State could re-align (does that mean Penn State gets to play traditional rivals like Pitt and West Virgina?) (I dunno, an Iowa State realign from the big 12 to even that, and a TCU realign to even that) to bring it to 11. Maybe re-add Temple to get a solid 12?

Thirdly, there needs to be a playoff system. I dunno how many conferences are going to exist, but maybe JUST ONE BERTH from each conference? Maybe have an at-large or two to even it out if it needs to be done.

If the major conferences are that much superior to the others then it really shouldnt be that big a deal for Texas to face the MAC winner, and Florida to face the Conference-USA winner, should it?

If the season's too long, then shorten it. 10-11 games was all most teams needed for the longest time. Now 12's become the standard within the past decade, and schools are complaining they'll play too many games. Frankly I think that was some sort of idea planted by the bsc, to ward off any playoff talk.

Re-alignment shouldn't be that much of an issue anyway, as most of the non-major conferences don't last too long. The Big 12 is an invention of the past 20 years, as is the current form of the SEC. The current ACC is even newer, going from 9-12 teams in one year.

I've probably gotten too long winded and possibly angry sounding by this point, so I shall leave you with that thought.

-- Knuttel

oh, and some Danzig