AFATT is... All Football All The Time
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Can a Plus Three Format Save the BCS
or should we blow it up completely?
Joe Tarell, December 29, 2007
I believe the only way to fix the BCS is to go to a "Plus Three" format. I
have chosen Plus Three as the moniker for my proposal because it
seems to be the only way that the various special interests can be
assuaged and still get a reasonable system to choose a champion for
major college football. The key is getting the bowl committees, the
college presidents, the NCAA, the conferences and the coaches to
agree. No easy task, but I believe this proposal solves all their legitimate
concerns.
First let's deal with some of the issues raised that are roadblocks to a
playoff. The first is the assertion that a playoff will degrade the regular
season and make it meaningless. The second is that bowls will lose their
appeal (what little is left for most of them). The third is that it will
length-en the regular season too far into January. The fourth is that
fans will not travel to multiple playoff games and thus create half empty
stadiums. This proposal will solve for all of them provided the people
raising the concerns are not just making excuses for some unknown
reason that is tied to the term "good old boy network" or is spelled
m-o-n-e-y.
The first step is to limit the number of teams to eight. Many have
suggested 16 or 12 because Division 1-AA (no need with my proposal to
continue with that silly new name) uses a 16 team playoff and it works.
Sixteen will ruin the bowl system and we can't do that because of the
money, the extra practice time and the measurement of success for
many schools. With eight teams, all the minor bowls can continue doing
what they have always done and their meaningless games are totally
unaffected. Right now the Poinsetta Bowl, et al, mean nothing in the big
picture, but they allow a coach to claim success in a small way for his
team, it is a reward for the players and it allows the team to get several
weeks of extra practice that can be very beneficial in recruiting as well for
young players and in preparation for next season. This is why the bowl
system lives on... this and money.
We choose those eight teams this way; The six conference champions of
the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC and Big East, plus two. This
year that would give us LSU , VT , USC, OSU, OU , WV , all top ten
teams a spot. This makes the conferences happy, this solves the issue
of the meaningless regular season and it can also assuage the smaller
conferences. This leaves two spots for the next two highest ranked
teams. That means if Hawaii or another smaller conference champion is
among the best eight teams in the country, they get a shot. Nothing
automatic because you are ranked in the top 12 or any of that baloney.
This year, we have Missouri and Georgia ranked five and six, sorry
Hawaii , sorry Kansas , but West Virginia , ninth ranked, won their
conference. This makes the regular season even more meaningful
because Kansas lost one game, but it was the last one and Hawaii lost
none, but played the weakest schedule in the country.
Now, let's play the first four games of the playoffs in the Rose, Orange ,
Sugar and Fiesta Bowls. And let's give the bowls the right to have their
anchor team in the game if it is possible. Seed them based on the final
"BCS" standings and you get Ohio State #1 vs. West Virginia #8, play
that in the Rose Bowl. You get LSU #2 vs. USC #7 in the Sugar Bowl.
You get Virginia Tech #3 vs. Missouri #6 in the Orange Bowl and
Oklahoma #4 vs. Georgia #5 in the Fiesta Bowl. This gives teams a
potential tie-in to their bowl and it makes every single bowl game more
exciting and will guarantee higher television ratings. Sure, the Rose
Bowl will cry because they do not get USC, but with them ranked
seventh, that is tough luck. USC should have played better during the
regular season. These games should all be played on New Year's Day
again; how's that for tradition.
We now have solved all concerns. Today the BCS championship game
is played one week after New Year's Day, so with two weeks of games
after New Year's, we extend the season one week for two teams. We
make the bowl games more compelling not less compelling, we retain
value for the regular season and we get a true champion decided on the
field. This makes sense and it will make a whole bucket load of money.
Those last seven games will have television ratings through the roof, will
have fans scrambling to buy tickets and none of the bowls games are
affected any more than they are today by this phoney BCS system,
except in a positive way.
After the bowl games, the bowl game sites can bid to host the next round
of games in the semi-finals and the finals. This way you only have two
weeks extra for two teams, the season is over one week later than today
and three of the bowls could host a second game and make even more
money. If travel for fans is a concern, hold the first round at the higher
ranked teams home field and then let the bowls bid for the last three or
hold the semi-finals at a home field. Either way it works, and once again
we would find out how serious the Rose Bowl is about their tradition
(spelled m-o-n-e-y).
This plan will work and we need to get a ground swell behind it so when
television contracts are up in 2011 we can make it happen. What has
happened this year is the biggest sham in a series of shams that the
BCS has delivered to us. Blow up the BCS. We deserve a true
champion!
Joe.Redskin and AFATT says so...
or should we blow it up completely?
Joe Tarell, December 29, 2007
I believe the only way to fix the BCS is to go to a "Plus Three" format. I
have chosen Plus Three as the moniker for my proposal because it
seems to be the only way that the various special interests can be
assuaged and still get a reasonable system to choose a champion for
major college football. The key is getting the bowl committees, the
college presidents, the NCAA, the conferences and the coaches to
agree. No easy task, but I believe this proposal solves all their legitimate
concerns.
First let's deal with some of the issues raised that are roadblocks to a
playoff. The first is the assertion that a playoff will degrade the regular
season and make it meaningless. The second is that bowls will lose their
appeal (what little is left for most of them). The third is that it will
length-en the regular season too far into January. The fourth is that
fans will not travel to multiple playoff games and thus create half empty
stadiums. This proposal will solve for all of them provided the people
raising the concerns are not just making excuses for some unknown
reason that is tied to the term "good old boy network" or is spelled
m-o-n-e-y.
The first step is to limit the number of teams to eight. Many have
suggested 16 or 12 because Division 1-AA (no need with my proposal to
continue with that silly new name) uses a 16 team playoff and it works.
Sixteen will ruin the bowl system and we can't do that because of the
money, the extra practice time and the measurement of success for
many schools. With eight teams, all the minor bowls can continue doing
what they have always done and their meaningless games are totally
unaffected. Right now the Poinsetta Bowl, et al, mean nothing in the big
picture, but they allow a coach to claim success in a small way for his
team, it is a reward for the players and it allows the team to get several
weeks of extra practice that can be very beneficial in recruiting as well for
young players and in preparation for next season. This is why the bowl
system lives on... this and money.
We choose those eight teams this way; The six conference champions of
the Big Ten, Pac Ten, Big 12, SEC, ACC and Big East, plus two. This
year that would give us LSU , VT , USC, OSU, OU , WV , all top ten
teams a spot. This makes the conferences happy, this solves the issue
of the meaningless regular season and it can also assuage the smaller
conferences. This leaves two spots for the next two highest ranked
teams. That means if Hawaii or another smaller conference champion is
among the best eight teams in the country, they get a shot. Nothing
automatic because you are ranked in the top 12 or any of that baloney.
This year, we have Missouri and Georgia ranked five and six, sorry
Hawaii , sorry Kansas , but West Virginia , ninth ranked, won their
conference. This makes the regular season even more meaningful
because Kansas lost one game, but it was the last one and Hawaii lost
none, but played the weakest schedule in the country.
Now, let's play the first four games of the playoffs in the Rose, Orange ,
Sugar and Fiesta Bowls. And let's give the bowls the right to have their
anchor team in the game if it is possible. Seed them based on the final
"BCS" standings and you get Ohio State #1 vs. West Virginia #8, play
that in the Rose Bowl. You get LSU #2 vs. USC #7 in the Sugar Bowl.
You get Virginia Tech #3 vs. Missouri #6 in the Orange Bowl and
Oklahoma #4 vs. Georgia #5 in the Fiesta Bowl. This gives teams a
potential tie-in to their bowl and it makes every single bowl game more
exciting and will guarantee higher television ratings. Sure, the Rose
Bowl will cry because they do not get USC, but with them ranked
seventh, that is tough luck. USC should have played better during the
regular season. These games should all be played on New Year's Day
again; how's that for tradition.
We now have solved all concerns. Today the BCS championship game
is played one week after New Year's Day, so with two weeks of games
after New Year's, we extend the season one week for two teams. We
make the bowl games more compelling not less compelling, we retain
value for the regular season and we get a true champion decided on the
field. This makes sense and it will make a whole bucket load of money.
Those last seven games will have television ratings through the roof, will
have fans scrambling to buy tickets and none of the bowls games are
affected any more than they are today by this phoney BCS system,
except in a positive way.
After the bowl games, the bowl game sites can bid to host the next round
of games in the semi-finals and the finals. This way you only have two
weeks extra for two teams, the season is over one week later than today
and three of the bowls could host a second game and make even more
money. If travel for fans is a concern, hold the first round at the higher
ranked teams home field and then let the bowls bid for the last three or
hold the semi-finals at a home field. Either way it works, and once again
we would find out how serious the Rose Bowl is about their tradition
(spelled m-o-n-e-y).
This plan will work and we need to get a ground swell behind it so when
television contracts are up in 2011 we can make it happen. What has
happened this year is the biggest sham in a series of shams that the
BCS has delivered to us. Blow up the BCS. We deserve a true
champion!
Joe.Redskin and AFATT says so...
| What does it take to succeed in today's NFL? I have been tracking this for the last few years. You can look at one stat and without knowing the standings accurately predict who is in the playoffs. Here are the top 10. Eight of the top ten QBs on this list are in the playoffs. Of course there are a few abnormalities that I highlighted. QB rating 1. T. Brady 14-0 2. D. Gerrard 10-4 3. T. Romo 12-2 4. B. Rothlisberger 9-5 5. B. Favre 12-2 6. P. Manning 12-2 7. J. Garcia 9-5 8. D. Breese 7-7 9. M. Hasslebeck 9-5 10. J. Cutler 6-8 Now lets look at the bottom 10 23. K. Boller (same team) 4-10 24. S. McNair (same team) 4-10 25. E. Manning 9-5 26. D. Huard 4-10 27. M. Bulger 3-11 28. V. Young 8-6 29. C. Lemon 1-13 30. T. Jackson 8-6 31. R. Grossman 5-9 32. K. Clemens 7-7 33. T. Dilfer 4-10 Jason.Cowboy and AFATT says so... Interesting as hell isn't it. Nobody understand the metrics used to make up this rating, but the reality is that it really does point out who is successful and who is not. Some people describe it as a passer rating, but in reality it is a passing game rating. By that I mean that this is one of the best gauges of how well your passing game is functioning and is not necessarily just about the QB. But as Ron Jaworski always says, "Points come from the passing game." And the one who scores the most wins.... everytime. Pat is currently working on an article based on the theory that great QB's make great coaches and not the other way around. It definitely has merit. Anyone remember Belichick's QB in Cleveland , or Dungy's in TB? Joe.Redskin and AFATT says so... Oh yes, this theory will be great grist for the mill! Exceptions to this coach tied to QB notion are not that rare...getting championships maybe but not being winners. Look at Cowher, Green for a time, and others. Sure, all fans want to be cheering for a Champion, but be assured, being winners year after year is just as important. And I'd argue that defense wins more than offense, but offense shines and makes for better press. You can't beat me if you can't get more points, no matter how poorly my "Noffense" plays. At this point we can talk about the value of exceptional kickers and I would love to see how many games are won by the foot and field position over the course of a game...and season. Rick.Eagle and AFATT says so... Defense does not win championships anymore. You have a to have a good D to get to the championship because you will face some serious offensive firepower in the playoffs, but offense is the way to go and QB is the key to winning today, more than ever. Joe.Redskin and AFATT says so... I don't know about that... Joe Gibbs was able to change to the strengths of his QBs but wouldn't necessarily say they weren't good. There are exceptions of course, but for the most part a good QB equates to a good coach. Now the other thing to keep in mind is that the truly great coaches had multiple good QBs. Shula comes to mind there along with Gibbs. Pat.Dolphin and AFATT says so... Gibbs is the only coach to win SB's with different QB's, other than Siefert, but that was... more Walsh's team the first time. Not Lombardi, not Parcells, not Johnson, not Shula, not Noll, not Belichick, not Shanahan, not Landry, none of the "great coaches", though Walsh may have if he had stuck around. So whether they were great or good QB's that Gibbs had is open for debate, but really know one has been able to do it with even a different one. Shula couldn't do it with two Hall of Famers in Unitas and Marino. Joe.Redskin and AFATT says so... |