2008 College Football In-Season Thread!

[Boz]

If a coin flip is good enough for the Texas 5A high school football championship, it's good enough for the Big XII.

(Televised live on ESPN, of course, with the actual coin flip preceded by a panel discussion show on the injured wrist of the Big XII official doing the flipping, Stuart Scott's live feed with the owner of the diner where the flip is to take place, and a pre-recorded set piece with Kenny Mayne interviewing the coin.)

[hifigator]

Dec 1, 2008 16:20:30 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

In lieu of a playoff, I'll take the BCS+1 option for now.

Doesn't solve nearly enough problems, but its a start...

I agree that the plus1 is a step in the right direction. At this point, that is all that we can ask for. Furthermore, I think that is the best approach to getting to "the promised land" -- aka a playoff!


Buff, you didn't answer the question though: how should the Big12 South champion be decided? Someone mentioned a coin flip being used in Texas high school. I'm not sure how a 3 team tie could easily be broken by a coin flip anyway.

[hoyarooter]

Dec 1, 2008 16:39:25 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Dec 1, 2008 16:20:30 GMT -5 buffalohoya said:

In lieu of a playoff, I'll take the BCS+1 option for now.

Doesn't solve nearly enough problems, but its a start...

I agree that the plus1 is a step in the right direction. At this point, that is all that we can ask for. Furthermore, I think that is the best approach to getting to "the promised land" -- aka a playoff!


Buff, you didn't answer the question though: how should the Big12 South champion be decided? Someone mentioned a coin flip being used in Texas high school. I'm not sure how a 3 team tie could easily be broken by a coin flip anyway.

With the famous Texas three-sided coin, of course. Where have you been? It's got a head on one side, a tail on the second side, and a picture of the great state of Texas on the third side. ;D

I'll make this simple. I'm for any alternative that would have put Texas in the Big 12 title game over Oklahoma. How about a do-over for the last play of the Texas Tech game?

[AustinHoya03]

I dug up the Big Ten tiebreaker scenarios from a post in October, when TBird still thought Minnesota had a shot at the Rose Bowl, before the blowout in the Metrodome (no, that's not a reference to the now-infamous tryst in a men's room stall). It turns out the Big Ten's #5 tiebreaker is equally as stupid as the Big 12's. To wit:

5. If there is still a tie, the most recent team earning BCS automatic selection shall be eliminated.

bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html

So what about the other conferences? Is it just possible that when you get to the #5 tiebreaker, it's always going to be silly?

PAC-10

If more than two teams are still tied after comparing their records all the way through the Conference standings, the team among the tied teams with the highest ranking in the final BCS standings shall be the Rose Bowl representative.

If a tie remains, the teams most recently earning Rose Bowl or Bowl Championship Series automatic selection shall be eliminated.

www.pac-10.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111605aac.html

ACC

5. Combined record versus all common non-divisional teams.

www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/fbtiebreaker.html

Okay, that's not so stupid, but head down to tiebreaker #7:

7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the ACC Championship Game.

SEC

Identical to the ACC tiebreaker scenario:

www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=46

BIG EAST

Uses the mini-conference scenario we're all familar with from CBB:

www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/pdfs/football/tiebreak.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=19400

So basically, there are a lot of stupid tiebreaker scenarios out there. As a general rule, when you get down to tiebreaker #5, things are going to get silly. Even the "fair" solution of using point differential against common opponents proposed by Musberger on-air Saturday night has serious flaws, IMO.

[Jack]

Do I recall correctly that prior to the BCS, the Big 10's first tiebreaker for the Rose Bowl bid was whichever team went least recently? Like, even if they had lost head to head to the team they are tied with?

[RDF]

I'd add this element which would really make things interesting---any team who schedules a Division 1-AA team is automatically eliminated from the BCS Title Game. You can't make the National Title game if you play a non D-1 team--and I don't want to hear any crying from fans about "this team...." schools like Ohio State, Florida, Oklahoma, etc....have more then enough money to find a D-1 opponent. Doesn't have to be a great one--hell look at Florida's non conference schedule next season-which outside of FSU is PATHETIC.

[theexorcist]

1. Yes, the Big Ten's tiebreaker (and I believe the PAC-10's, too), used to be length of absence from the Granddaddy.

2. I don't like the I-AA idea - if that happens, people will schedule North Texas (#182 in Sagarin), and not James Madison (#36 in Sagarin, ahead of Kansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia).

[SFHoya99]

Texas Tech played two DI-AA schools? They shouldn't even get to go to a bowl.

[kchoya]

Dec 1, 2008 22:18:43 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

I dug up the Big Ten tiebreaker scenarios from a post in October, when TBird still thought Minnesota had a shot at the Rose Bowl, before the blowout in the Metrodome (no, that's not a reference to the now-infamous tryst in a men's room stall). It turns out the Big Ten's #5 tiebreaker is equally as stupid as the Big 12's. To wit:

5. If there is still a tie, the most recent team earning BCS automatic selection shall be eliminated.

bigten.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html

So what about the other conferences? Is it just possible that when you get to the #5 tiebreaker, it's always going to be silly?

PAC-10

If more than two teams are still tied after comparing their records all the way through the Conference standings, the team among the tied teams with the highest ranking in the final BCS standings shall be the Rose Bowl representative.

If a tie remains, the teams most recently earning Rose Bowl or Bowl Championship Series automatic selection shall be eliminated.

www.pac-10.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/111605aac.html

ACC

5. Combined record versus all common non-divisional teams.

www.theacc.com/sports/m-footbl/fbtiebreaker.html

Okay, that's not so stupid, but head down to tiebreaker #7:

7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the conclusion of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the ACC Championship Game.

SEC

Identical to the ACC tiebreaker scenario:

www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&change_well_id=2&url_article_id=46

BIG EAST

Uses the mini-conference scenario we're all familar with from CBB:

www.bigeast.org/fls/19400/pdfs/football/tiebreak.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=19400

So basically, there are a lot of stupid tiebreaker scenarios out there. As a general rule, when you get down to tiebreaker #5, things are going to get silly. Even the "fair" solution of using point differential against common opponents proposed by Musberger on-air Saturday night has serious flaws, IMO.

At least the SEC (and ACC I guess) tiebreaker would look to head-to-head if the teams are within 5 in the BCS. If applied to the Big XII, that would send Texas to Arrowhead.

[hifigator]

As for assorted tiebreakers, add the SEC to the list of conferences that used to have that "least recently" clause. In the days before the BCS and computer importance, if there were two (or more) teams tied for the SEC title, they would each be declared co-champions, but the team that would be given the automatic bid to the Sugar Bowl was the team that had been there least recently. I know for a fact, because prior to Spurrier, we always had that tiebreaker, having never won the SEC before -- at least not without having it taken away by malcontented Vol fans.


On Edit: I don't like the idea of excluding any team from consideration if they have a 1-AA team on the schedule, for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that the smaller schools count on the paycheck that they receive from the big schools. The couple of games that these teams play against the SEC, Big 12, Big 10 etc... often fund the entire athletic budget for the year. Additionally, a lot of times teams are in transition. I remember not that long ago, USF wasn't D-1 in football. They were trying to build their program and by taking on a couple of the big guys, they were able to eventually do so. I think the same is true of UConn. Finally, there could be cases where traditional rivals end up in different divisions. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but say for example that Georgia and Georgia Southern were annual rivals. I would hate to see a tradition end because of some silly rule that said that a team that plays a school from a lower division is ineligible for BCS consideration.

[hoyarooter]

Jack and exorcist are correct. Elimination of the last team to go has been in place in the Big 10 and Pac 10 pretty much forever, and was applied occasionally (although off the top of my head, I can't recall the last time).

[TBird41]

Dec 2, 2008 13:28:30 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

Jack and exorcist are correct. Elimination of the last team to go has been in place in the Big 10 and Pac 10 pretty much forever, and was applied occasionally (although off the top of my head, I can't recall the last time).

Yup. And now that it's not the first tiebreaker for the Rose Bowl, the Gophers have no chance of ever going to Pasadena again.

[RDF]

Dec 2, 2008 10:27:11 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Texas Tech played two DI-AA schools? They shouldn't even get to go to a bowl.

If you play one--you should be eliminated from National Title game--2 and you can't play in BCS. I'd say that is pretty easy to avoid.

[RDF]

Dec 2, 2008 13:26:35 GMT -5 hifigator said:

As for assorted tiebreakers, add the SEC to the list of conferences that used to have that "least recently" clause. In the days before the BCS and computer importance, if there were two (or more) teams tied for the SEC title, they would each be declared co-champions, but the team that would be given the automatic bid to the Sugar Bowl was the team that had been there least recently. I know for a fact, because prior to Spurrier, we always had that tiebreaker, having never won the SEC before -- at least not without having it taken away by malcontented Vol fans.


On Edit: I don't like the idea of excluding any team from consideration if they have a 1-AA team on the schedule, for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that the smaller schools count on the paycheck that they receive from the big schools. The couple of games that these teams play against the SEC, Big 12, Big 10 etc... often fund the entire athletic budget for the year. Additionally, a lot of times teams are in transition. I remember not that long ago, USF wasn't D-1 in football. They were trying to build their program and by taking on a couple of the big guys, they were able to eventually do so. I think the same is true of UConn. Finally, there could be cases where traditional rivals end up in different divisions. I can't think of one off the top of my head, but say for example that Georgia and Georgia Southern were annual rivals. I would hate to see a tradition end because of some silly rule that said that a team that plays a school from a lower division is ineligible for BCS consideration.

The "paycheck" comment is beyond LAME Hifi. If you are worried about that, keep scheduling them for their "need" and that is fine-it's just that the Gators wouldn't be eligible to play in BCS Title game. They can make the BCS--just not title game. Schedule 2 in a year-you can't play in BCS Bowl game. What is so hard to figure out about that? Not like CBS and ESPN didn't give SEC a ton of money to televise their sports--especially CFB-so give them their "paycheck" and still find a D-1 opponent. Nobody is saying that teams have to schedule top 25 teams--just think it's ridiculous that a school like Florida has the Citadel on it's schedule at any time--or FSU with Chatanooga and the Citadel, or Miami playing Charleston Southern.

Now the other argument could be "We had school X on schedule and they backed out"--well here's how to address that. Any school that backs out of a game within 2 years of it being played is responsible for finding the team left without a game an opponent and if they cannot--they can't qualify for BCS and that team left to dry is absolved for that particular season. So if Miami backed out against Florida--they'd be responsible for finding Florida an opponent and if not--and Gators end up with Citadel or someone like that--Florida isn't punished but Miami would be.

If you hit schools monetarily--they'll abide quickly.

[hifigator]

We can agree to disagree on this one. I am not a big fan of the patsy games, but I understand the economics of the situation. To dismiss the financial needs that the smaller schools have just because the game doesn't interest you personally is silly in my mind. You obviously think otherwise. Forget about division for a minute. That is really a red herring. There are quality Div. 1-AA teams out there that offer much more competition than some of the lower level D-1 teams. Think of Appalachian State or Georgia Southern in certain years. But getting back to the money issue, when a team like the Citadel, or La-Monroe, La Lafeyette, Northeastern etc... come in and play a team like a Florida, Nebraska or Alabama, the outcome of the contest in not really in doubt. We all pretty much know that. But as I mentioned before, there will be a check in the neighborhood of 3/4 to a million dollars written to the smaller school. That is often the money that allows them to fund their conference games. Remember, most of those schools don't have the lucrative TV contracts. Additionally, they don't have 90,000+ attendence funding their program. Oftentimes, their games may have four or five thousand fans and no television whatsoever. The two or three games that these schools step out against the big boys is very crucial to their program's financial feasibility. Secondary and lesser benefits are that small school athletes get exposure they might otherwise never get. As for the big schools, games of this sort often allow you to rest starters and get healthy for the next game. Additionally some of the younger or second and third string players will get to play. They bust their tails in practice as well, and sometimes it is nice to give them a chance to play for real.

I understand your disiniterest in these "laughers," but I think that there can be enough positives to handle one game of that sort per year. I will meet you halfway though and if a team has 2 such games, then I wouldn't object too vehemently over a clause preventing them from title consideration that year.

[Deleted]

Dec 2, 2008 15:43:34 GMT -5 hifigator said:

We can agree to disagree on this one. I am not a big fan of the patsy games, but I understand the economics of the situation. To dismiss the financial needs that the smaller schools have just because the game doesn't interest you personally is silly in my mind. You obviously think otherwise. Forget about division for a minute. That is really a red herring. There are quality Div. 1-AA teams out there that offer much more competition than some of the lower level D-1 teams. Think of Appalachian State or Georgia Southern in certain years. But getting back to the money issue, when a team like the Citadel, or La-Monroe, La Lafeyette, Northeastern etc... come in and play a team like a Florida, Nebraska or Alabama, the outcome of the contest in not really in doubt. We all pretty much know that. But as I mentioned before, there will be a check in the neighborhood of 3/4 to a million dollars written to the smaller school. That is often the money that allows them to fund their conference games. Remember, most of those schools don't have the lucrative TV contracts. Additionally, they don't have 90,000+ attendence funding their program. Oftentimes, their games may have four or five thousand fans and no television whatsoever. The two or three games that these schools step out against the big boys is very crucial to their program's financial feasibility. Secondary and lesser benefits are that small school athletes get exposure they might otherwise never get. As for the big schools, games of this sort often allow you to rest starters and get healthy for the next game. Additionally some of the younger or second and third string players will get to play. They bust their tails in practice as well, and sometimes it is nice to give them a chance to play for real.

I understand your disiniterest in these "laughers," but I think that there can be enough positives to handle one game of that sort per year. I will meet you halfway though and if a team has 2 such games, then I wouldn't object too vehemently over a clause preventing them from title consideration that year.

Sounds like a strong argument for socialism there, hifi...

[hifigator]

Cam, I'm not sure I see your point. The socialist view would be to simply take money from the coffers of the haves and distribute it somewhat arbitrarily among the have-nots. That isn't the case here. They are coming in and participating in an event that will still bring in millions of dollars to the local community. They come in and compete, although in many cases I guess I would be using that term loosely. Still, that isn't in any way socialist. Now if you want to draw an appropriate parallel, you could use football and the non-revenue sports. At most programs, football makes money and men's basketball makes money. Virtually every other sport loses money. There are a few exceptions. Tennessee women's hoops makes money. I think I remember reading that Miami baseball makes money because of the booster fees tied to ticket sales. But by and large, everything other than football and men's hoops loses money. Given that the athletic budget is largely filled exclusively by football revenues, then I could see that as being a degree of socialism. But I don't see how paying an opponent in any way is socialistic.

[hoya9797]

When is the last time Florida played an out of conference game outside the state of Florida?

[hifigator]

Off the top of my head, it would be the Peach Bowl against Miami in Zook's last year. Charlie Strong coached that one game after the Zooker left.


On Edit: I know where you are going with that, but it is a somewhat flawed argument. When you have two quality in-state opponents like FSU and Miami that happen to be in another conference, in addition to your mandatory conference schedule, then there is really only one choice and that's whether you play your in-state foes on a home and home basis or whether you don't, instead opting for out of region opponents.

[theexorcist]

Unrelated to discussion of strength of schedule, but awesome nonetheless...

sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&page=dash0814&sportCat=ncf

Dash Moment of the Year -- Ball State senior Jake Erdley showing up at every Cardinals game in a panda bear outfit and a T-shirt proclaiming himself the Touchdown Panda (37). Erdley said he got the outfit from his aunt's costume shop because (A) she didn't have a cardinal and (B) "everyone likes pandas."