Keith Jackson Quotable
Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 06:08PM The BCS goes back to the alliance days which was a power grab and a money grab by certain conferences and it hasn't changed in its intent," Jackson said. "To add another game, will it resolve controversy over who's who and what's what? I really truly doubt it."
The Pac-10 and the Big Ten didn't start the fire.
They were plenty happy before the Bowl Alliance (or whatever it was called back then) came along. They were less happy after it. And they're a little less happy now with the BCS. Here's guessing they'd be content with things going back to the way they were before the other conferences changed the composition of the game. It was a bad move then and heading towards a playoff is an even worse move now.
Does anyone really think 12-team conferences are good for college football? How about conference title games? Schedules are finite. College football simply cannot play a 16-week season like the NFL. Flying in the face of logic, most of the same conferences that pushed us into this Alliance/BCS reality are also the conferences carrying twelve members.
It's obvious that round-robin play (or something close to it) is superior to split divisions (see SEC, Big 12, ACC) and possible repeat matchups in conference title games. Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents? Do you follow?
The major conferences most associated with sensible conference play (Pac-10, Big Ten, Big East) are the same ones treated as the villains in all of this, Big East excluded. Amazing. We had it right, once ...
CFR |
18 Comments | 





Reader Comments (18)
It wasn't too long ago that we had the Peach Bowl and the Tangerine Bowl...now known as the Chick-Fil-A Bowl and the Capital One Bowl. That alone tells you why tradition was tossed aside: Money.
I think we're headed to additional games, because of Money. It's just too tempting to have more than it is to leave Tradition alone.
So you're proposing capping conference membership to 10 teams? Sounds about right. Wonder what 2 members gets the axe? You're really starting to lose it now.
"College football simply cannot play a 16-week season" DUH, how many weeks was Appy State's season this year? A true national championship won on the field. College football begins first weekend of Sept. and ends now the middle of January. Unless my 3rd grade fails me that's about 19 weeks.
This blog was better when you just kept quiet for weeks.
I also tend to believe that if you made everyone drop down to ten teams and play the 9-game round-robin schedule you'd end up with more of a muddled mess than you get now from the conference title games. It works well in the Pac-10 because there is never any debate, USC's the best. However, in all likelihood this year you would have had three-loss teams across the board in the SEC, or maybe a two-loss champion. But the mess of sorting out three-way ties at two-losses with no clear distinction on heads-up play would be far more likely. At least with the situation as it is this year, you can thumb your nose at a Georgia team and say, hey, win your conference. But if UGA didn't win their conference because of a convoluted tie-breaker, well, trouble would abound. With at least 6 conferences under that system, the math says it would happen every year, at least once.
Using the same logic:
Can a team truly be the national champion if it hasn't faced all national opponents?
Please advise, thanks.
NFL: 12 of 32 make playoffs
CFB: 4 or 8 of 119 would make playoffs
Those are not close to being the same. And give me a break -- if UGA loses to Florida, you will never be able to say "no big deal" after that game. College football is not and will never be like the NFL. Rivalries actually matter in college, regardless of any other circumstance.
UGA's rivalry game against Georgia Tech has no bearing on the SEC championship race. Do you still want to win that one every year or is it meaningless because it has no effect on the SEC?
In your question about Tech, ask yourself this. How would I feel walking home after an 11-0 UGA team lost to Tech to lose a title chance? Now compare that to how I would feel if an 11-0 UGA team lost to Tech but still had a very good chance at a top 4 seed in the tournament?
The regular season is rendered meaningless because two out of 42 Super Bowl Champions overcome a five seed?
I also don't buy the idea that a loss won't sting just because it doesn't eliminate your team from the title race. Under the 16 team format I favor, a loss could be the difference between hosting three playoff games and hosting none in addition to presumably easier competition.
Of course, they have been the best ones. The point is that the sudden death format allows a handful of schools to do more than everyone else combined. That type of domination exists nowhere else in sports.
So what you're saying is that you don't necessarily want the best team (however you define it) in a given year to win the championship?
I don't care whether or not the "best team" wins. My point is that the sudden death format is not good for competition. The national race isn't just for a select group of teams in a given year. The national title race is exclusive to a small group of teams over the past 30 years. Even worse is that this group of teams avoid each other as much as possible. I don't get playoff opponents who romanticize how meaningful college football's regular season is when it discourages competition. Imagine a 120-team league where six members account for more than half of the playoff berths over a 30-year period and the best teams avoid each other in favor of scheduling the weakest members or those in a lower league. How is that something to be celebrate just because a national title team cannot knowingly afford to lose?