(04-04-2012 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (04-04-2012 10:52 AM)JRsec Wrote: So, the general idea is that we want an unbiased means of selecting a field of four teams to determine a national champion in football. The first assertion is that a small committee would be as, perhaps more, biased than a poll. The second assertion is that no human wants the pressure of picking the four contenders. And furthermore, the solution is the biased poll from which we are trying to move away. Brilliant!
This kind of circular argument has been used to pettifog this issue for too long. We do have people who help pick all of the contenders. It's not that they do not want the pressure, they just don't want people to know who they are.
We know what we have to do to move beyond polls, and committees. But, then the powerful will not get to hide behind the scenes to set up the matchups that are the most profitable in terms of advertising dollars and market share. And it is both the powerful television execs and the execs of the power institutions that want to keep the bias in their favor.
So, let's dodge the four champion approach by claiming it's not feasible. Then we will rename the old jaded process, the "new and less jaded process" and keep doing what we please inspite of public opinion. After all, they are just the ignorant masses that pay the bills. Why should their desires affect our nice arrangement?
Isn't that what you are really saying? JR
No, the point is that since we're going to have a 4-team playoff, we're going to ALWAYS have to use a method that's going to include human bias, whether it's a poll, committee or computer ranking. It's impossible to eliminate. Even if you use 4 conference champions, how are you going to determine which 4 conference champions are the best ones? Some type of poll, committee or computer ranking! A 16-team playoff with auto-bids for all 11 conference champs could eliminate that issue, but that's about as realistic as talking about unicorns.
You can't eliminate impartiality. The only thing that you can do is mitigate it. For all of the complaints about the BCS rankings, how often have they cut out a school with a legit argument for the national title out of the *TOP 4*? If they have done so, why would someone ranked #5 or lower have gotten in over a top 4? Why would some other method (a committee or computer ranking or something else) change the outcome?
I guess it's just my attitude about the playoffs: I want to see the 4 best teams playing each other. That's what's "fair" to me. A #10 Wisconsin team getting into a playoff over a #2 Alabama team or even a #8 Boise State team that also didn't win its conference is NOT "fair" to me. Jeebus - I'm a Big Ten guy defending Mike Slive and the SEC here! Slive is correct in how he's approaching this by saying this should be about determining the best team in college football (which means taking the best 4 teams, even if they're all from the same conference) as opposed determining the winner of a tournament (which means not including teams that could be among the 4 best teams).
The wild card concept is a way to bridge that gap as a compromise, and if you want anything done in college football, you better be ready to compromise. *No one* is getting everything that they want, and that includes the Big Ten and SEC.
Four large regional conferences with enough teams to a division to accomodate 72-80 teams is all we need for four conference champions to emerge to determine a national champion. That's really not too far from the much mentioned 64. So it's very doable.
The reason the networks don't want four conferences is because their combined strength would not permit as favorable a contract negotiation process as the networks presently have. They also fear the production, marketing, and distribution of the athletic product of those schools, by those schools. ESPN among others has grown fat and powerful by giving the colleges (although there is a symbiont quality present) a fraction of the advertising dollars generated off their cheap to produce, yet high yeild product.
The reason some of the power conferences are reticent to expand is pie share. But what they fail to understand is that the more exclusionary their club becomes the less control, not more, they will have over their product's worth. If the more dominant programs are segregated from the struggling ones, the fewer wins those dominant programs will have. Hence, the pool of those remaining dominant will shrink along with their fan support and marketability.
To that regard Jim Delaney is way ahead of the curve with the Big 10 network, which is why he is in a position to resist expansion. He commands a higher dollar value than his product is probably really worth, by having at his disposal the means through which to remove network participation if it should ever come to that.
The train of consolidation, and that is what it really is, has left the proverbial station. The tracks tell us the ultimate destination is pared down structure. The conclusion is the formation of a new upper tier in college athletics. The unforeseen consequence, since the models based on viewership will not detect this threat, will be the alienation of large numbers of smaller college viewers who will lose interest if their teams are not allowed to compete in the new tier.
College football viewers are among the most loyal to their sport of any sports viewers. If their team doesn't have a good year they usually pick another to follow for the season. Divide and you lose a great deal of that interest.
As for conferences, they are a redundant expense that time will erode.
I believe the networks first perceived the idea of four superconferences as being much easier to deal with, and one that would provide more anticipated matchups. Then, thanks to the Big 10, they saw the threat of allowing this consolidation to reach such a manageable number. Now they like the ungainliness of 5 or more conferences.
What's more, large school interests have discovered the same thing. They too like sticky ambiguity. Out of the haze of that ambiguity they can retain their control and try to pull the brake chord of the train, stopping it before it reaches its logical conclusion, the structure that permits four uncontrolled teams to emerge for a playoff. Once the destination is achieved there will be no big school behind the scenes lobbying, and no big network deal for ratings sake. It will be a take what you get environment, as it should be.
I understand the complexities, but that is the stock excuse used against true reform.
I also understand that the wheels grind slowly for change. (The second greatest do nothing excuse.) The reality is not about what I, or others, would like to see transpire. The reality consists of the unstated reasons it will not. Manipulators don't like transparency.
I am not for a power elite upper tier for reasons already stated in posts. I am for a structure that yeilds an untampered field of contenders coming from a large enough pool of teams to profit all of our universities. The smaller ones would obtain revenue and the dream of a great year, and the larger ones would have enough wins to remain strong, yet with enough competition to remain interesting. It's a successful mix.
I know, impossible. But it's not. All it takes is a self-owned product with production capabilities coupled with colletive bargaining.
Your view is short term and is of the process you think must be played out to arrive at the ultimate destination. My view is that those intermediate steps are really obstacles intended to circumvent the ultimate destination. Your view is to compromise to move forward. My view is that a position that is half right can be more destructive than one that is totally wrong. The thrust for change is lost when you blunt it by compromise. Then it takes years before you can muster critical mass to accomplish your ends. And, in the meantime many good people, and cherished institutions will be damaged, or destroyed, by inaction.
So you see Frank, I'm not a youngster wanting a cool new playoff format. I'm an older person who sees the potential losses to be suffered by not arriving at that ultimate destination with our full complement of schools intact and profitable. I am one who has known the loss of opportunity, and the casualties of compromise. I've also lived long enough to understand divide and conquer, and privilege. I've helped to negotiate some of those backroom deals, just not in sports. There are no innocent players in this game either.
And as far as finding the best four teams, that is a fantasy that is indeterminable. The best teams don't always win. That's why it is exciting. At least with four conference champions you are getting the best of four regions as determined on the field. From among those one emerges and is declared champion. It's fair. It's decisive. And, it's what the players deserve as well as the fans.
By the way, be careful of that undertone of condecension, while you may not have intended it and I was not offended by it, I did note it. That it is not becoming of one whose readers hold him in higher esteem. JR
/
Notre Dame Moving Closer to BCS Irrelevence--Sporting News
