(11-25-2014 12:39 PM)JRsec Wrote: (11-25-2014 07:17 AM)TerryD Wrote: (11-25-2014 02:17 AM)JRsec Wrote: Most of the arguments here avoid the simple reality of structural change. Every time you hear me speak of a champions only model you also hear me say P4. Consolidate to 4 conferences and a champions only model works just fine. And excuse me but why should Notre Dame get a pass as an independent when every other school plays within a preset structure. There are only two solutions for Notre Dame. Either every school becomes an independent and the top 64 are seeded and pre-scheduled every year so that their chance within a structure is relatively handicapped equally, or everyone plays within the conference system. Since it is easier to change the parameters of one school than that of 63 or 64 others the answer is simple. Besides since when have the Irish been that relevant to the national championship picture. The fact that they are accorded any measure of special treatment is a travesty in itself. I've got nothing against them but really why are we still catering to the whims of one school who needs all of the others who are already in conferences to comprise their schedule anyway (unless they are still picking on the service academies which historically they have dominated in all but N.D.'s worst years.)
If conference championships are the only way into a 4 team field, and you have only 4 conferences to start with, then every game played factors into those schools that face off for that conference title. And yet again for the uninitiated if that is your model you not only decide the issue on the field and get it out of the hands of the corporate interests in commercial advertising, but you also get rid of the need to have beauty pageant games in the first place.
But it is true that having a champions only model doesn't work with a P5.
But giving losers of conference championship games a pass cheapens the whole process so I despise the at large positions. The thing that made college football superior for so long was that you couldn't afford to stumble. I just don't believe in giving losers of big games a second chance at the victor. L.S.U. should never have had to face Alabama again after having won the Western Division and risked another loss in the Conference championship game.
Football is not basketball thank goodness and if the playoffs expand to 8 and then 16 that's exactly how the NCAA basketball tournament began for all of you too young to remember it. I agree that the tournament has made most of the regular season totally meaningless. You can play mediocre basketball for the majority of the season, get hot and win your conference tourney and punch your ticket.
Right now college football isn't anything like that. Yes we have expanded and now have divisions within conferences but you still have to win your division to earn a right to play in that championship game for your conference title. In football, until the year that Alabama got a redo, which I consider to be a major setback, you had to at least win your division to get to play for a championship, and to have a shot at one of the two BCS slots you needed to win your conference as well, and at least have a great OOC win loss record to boot. It wasn't perfect because it still permitted rent a kill games, but it was better than punishing a champion (LSU) by making them vanquish a team they had already defeated in a redo game.
The only reason we don't have a P4 is because ESPN paid to keep it a P5 (see LHN for details) and the reason they did that is because that way they could have a damned committee pick schools by a subjective criteria and still have a modicum of control over the demographics of those who get in. Anyone who believes that a small market P5 school is going to beat out a national brand or big market school for slots in a 4 school tournament is nuts. Millions in advertising dollars are at stake. IMO that is why Ohio State is getting positioned to move past either a second SEC school or ahead of two small market draws from the Big 12. Mississippi state is presently positioned to either serve as an Alabama replacement should they stumble against Auburn or Georgia, but placed where Ohio State can pass them (provided OSU beats Michigan & Wisconsin) should Alabama win out. If OSU wins out what you wind up with, given all others presently ranked win out, is 4 national brands representing 4 strong regional markets which is exactly why we have the committee and a P5 instead of a P4. Your field will be Florida State, Alabama, Oregon, and Ohio State. Oregon will get positioned to play the Buckeyes in the Rose Bowl and Alabama will play Florida State in the Sugar. Add rates will soar and ESPN will make millions more than if Mississippi State, Baylor, T.C.U. or Arizona State stumbled into the mix. 4 national brands representing 4 distinct markets is as good as it gets for the Mouse.
ESPN's worst nightmare could have happened this year. Duke or Georgia Tech upsets Florida State. Mississippi State wins the SEC. Ohio State stumbles in a weak Big 10 and gets left out. Baylor or T.C.U. win the Big 12. And, Arizona State takes the PAC. Now ESPN for all the money they have invested get no national brands in the final 4 and they get 4 very small regional markets. Ad dollars drop to an all time low and they lose money on their baby the 4 team playoff.
Let's assume they had allowed the PAC to be successful in acquiring Texas schools. It could have been worse. Let's say that the SEC took Baylor to get a hold on the DFW market and added an Oklahoma school to make sure of it and that Texas had taken T.C.U. with them to the west coast. We have a P4 but one in which T.C.U. upsets Arizona State and Oregon on their way to the PAC championship. Baylor wins the SEC. Georgia Tech upsets Florida State in the ACC championship game. And Minnesota somehow takes the Big 10. Without the committee and the extra conference ESPN loses again.
The Baylor's, T.C.U.'s, Mississippi State's, Duke's and Georgia Tech's, Minnesota's and Arizona State's of the world are never going to get a fair shake in the present system, especially if there are two or more of them viably entering the final weeks of the season. As long as a conference championship is not a requirement (and screw the language that says preference) and as long as a committee gets to pick, the Alabama's, Ohio State's, Texas's and Oklahoma's (as long as they are at least competitive in the win/loss ledger) and the U.S.C.'s and Oregon's will get their shot whether they win their conferences or not. All of this jazz is about making sure the corporate network's investment in paying for all of this is protected.
We talk about buying players, cheating in academics to keep them eligible, ignoring their criminal behavior to keep them on the field, and we get riled up in our righteous indignation about all of that only then we swallow yet another excuse to keep the sham of selection arbitrary instead of letting it be handled on field. Gee we've either got a lot of gullible people or we love to wallow in our hypocrisy.
And for the record if we want to include the G5 it should be champs only for them too and they (the kids) should have the right to earn that on the field and not have some corporate executives derive a system to shaft them because they come from a poor ratings area.
********************************************************************************************************************************
Addendum: I do think the corporate networks were interested in shrinking the pool of schools to compete for the championship because that limits overhead to a large degree. And anyone who thinks that the colleges have hit their upside hasn't really considered just how low the overhead is compared to professional sports and producing network programming from scratch. There is still a big upside. That said I also believe that the networks were originally interested in the super conference model. Such a model allowed for greater scheduling freedom, more content, and 4 divisions per conference could hedge their bets on national brands. Put Penn State, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska in different divisions and the odds of a non national Big 10 brand winning everything goes way down. Put L.S.U., Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, and Texas A&M into 4 divisions and you reduce the chances of a non national brand emerging from the SEC. Find ways to do the same in the ACC and PAC and then 4 conferences of 4 divisions each become a better guarantor of appropriate outcomes for a 4 school playoff. But right now while property rights to certain schools have to be calculated in it was better to have a P5 with committee control for the networks. I do sincerely hope we move quickly past this mess.
2012? Did I just imagine ND going 12-0 and playing in the championship game that year?
Anyway, if ND is not relevant, then why do you care if it is a football independent? It should not matter all that much, should it?
Hey, keep the playoffs at four or expand to eight. But, leave all of this "champions only" stuff and P4 consolidation here on message boards, where it belongs.
We all remember a title game that was woefully over at the half as well. But that aside, I have nothing against Notre Dame, and have enjoyed quite often pulling for them because of some of the diverse schools they play, but I meant quite seriously the two options. Either we are all independent agents, or we are members of a larger structure. At this point the two can not compatibly exist because of inequities. Furthermore Terry your position would hold more merit if the Irish were independent in basketball, Olympic sports, baseball, and in all other areas. But you are not. You choose football as the only sport in which you still pursue independence. Why? It is the money sport and doing so gives you advantages. So if independence were the real issue you would be independent across the board. I could support that ethically and therefore in practice. Instead you choose independence in the only matter that profits you. Therefore there is no ethical side to your position. There is no such thing as a situational ethic, therefore there is no higher moral ground that you are defending.
As for consolidation it is the only way to provide the structure that no longer requires subjectivity. To do away with the subjectivity is to make the game a little more honest. I think the game owes that to the fans. And I'll not only post it on message boards, but beat the point home at every opportunity as it is my right to speak my mind on the issue. Which by the way makes your dictate that it be left only to the message boards a desire to create an infringement on liberty. Somehow I find that desire contradictory to the position you claim to hold. And yet I do not believe that to be part of the spirit you imbue.
Take care, JR
Well, ND did go 12-0 in 2012, so they were recently very relevant to the championship in football as recently as two years ago. People seem to have forgotten this.
LSU was shut out by Alabama in the title game the year before that, didn't even cross mid-field. LSU was blown out by three touchdowns.
Does that mean that LSU did not belong in that game, or was not relevant to the championship in 2011?
I think most teams would have been blown out by Alabama in those two championship games.
BTW, I have never claimed a "higher moral ground" for ND.
I only claim the right of self determination and the right of a school to choose its own path, not some "Borg like, one size fits all" conference consolidation BS.
And yes, I liked ND basketball better when it was a true independent and could make its own schedule and play anyone, anywhere, any time.
I lost much interest in ND basketball when it gave up independence and joined the Big East back in 1995.
Being in a basketball conference instead of being an independent caused me to care much less about ND basketball than I did in the Seventies and Eighties.
If I had my way, ND would still be an independent in basketball and even baseball. Divisions and conference championship goals hold little interest for me.
By the way, football independence does not "profit ND". ND could make much, much more money in the Big Ten, for instance.
For ND, the issue is with football independence is more rooted in tradition, school identity, etc, not so much money.
ND football can afford to be independent. Too bad that basketball could not, or it still would be. To be honest, I would rather ND fold its basketball programs than be in a conference, but nobody ever asked me.
But, back to the discussion at hand. I never thought subjectivity was such a bad thing for college football and still don't.
This is not the NFL. The schools are not part separate franchises of the same entity. There is great subjectivity in scheduling. The SEC playing FCS schools in the eleventh game of the year...in November? Come on.
There is great subjectivity between conferences. The third place team in the SEC might be a better team than the Big Ten, Pac 12 or ACC champ.
So, why should that "better" team be left out of the playoffs so that every conference can get a "participation medal" with an automatic bid to the playoffs?
Most of college football is subjective. Otherwise, Alabama would play Southern Cal and Ohio State every year, and all teams would play many cross-conference, intersectional games instead of FCS and bottom dwelling conference teams every year.
Have the traditional top thirty programs play each other on a rotating basis, every three years or so, without regard for conference affiliation, then you would have a more "NFL like" structure and less "subjectivity".
I could support such a college football structure, but not a forced consolidation of four sixteen school conferences.
My "message board" comment means that everyone can say what they like on them, I am in favor of free expression.
In the real world, I don't think that we will ever see a four conference setup nor a four team, conference champ only playoff setup.
Take care.
/
Conference champions only model
