"Spend a few minutes reading College Football Resource" - Whit Watson, Sun Sports

"Maybe you should start your own blog" - Bruce Feldman, ESPN

"[An] Excellent resource for all things college football. It’s blog index is the definitive listing of the CFB blogosphere ... [A] must-read for fans." - Sports Illustrated (On Campus)

"The big daddy of them all, the nerve center of this twisted college football blogsphere" - The House Rock Built

"Unsurprisingly, College Football Resource has generated some discussion" -Dawg Sports

Top Teams 2008

After Week Seven

  1. Alabama
  2. Penn State
  3. Texas
  4. Oklahoma
  5. Florida
  6. USC
  7. Georgia
  8. LSU
  9. BYU
  10. Missouri
  11. Ohio State
  12. Oklahoma State
  13. Texas Tech
  14. Utah
  15. Kansas
  16. USF
  17. North Carolina
  18. Miami
  19. Boise State
  20. Georgia Tech
Display
RSS
Search CFR
Submission Corner
« Almost Here: Spring Football | Main | Playoff Quotable »
Sunday
Jan202008

Keith Jackson Quotable

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 ...

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (18)

I feel that the split title year with LSU and USC pretty much settled things in my mind; there is always going to be an argument against the team the BCS calls the 'champion'.

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.
January 21, 2008 | Unregistered Commentergerrrg
If the ACC and SEC do away with divisional format and play every other member of their conference that would allow for one OOC game. The Big elevTen and Pac 10 have certainly entertained adding members so what then will be your sorry ass excuse for not having a playoff?

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.

January 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDawgy
Apologies to Bud Light, but DUDE. Seriously? I understand you liking the Pac-10's conference play, but you cannot, CANNOT pretend to put the Big Ten in there. They play ALMOST everyone in their conference, but they are the only conference that I am aware of in college football that can have co-champs with identical undefeated records in conference play, or two one-loss teams that didn't play each other. That's the worst system in college football, not the conference title game format.

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.
January 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCody
"Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents?" I didn't look it up, but how many times over the last 100+ years has any conference champion won after having played every team in its conference?
January 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAndy T.
CFR,

Using the same logic:

Can a team truly be the national champion if it hasn't faced all national opponents?

Please advise, thanks.
January 22, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMarty
Don't get me wrong--I HATE the Pats--but you are mistaken if you think the Giants are the best team in the NFL.
February 4, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZick
Who said anything about the Giants being the best team? The best team (an unverifiable matter of opinion) is not entitled to win a competition simply because it is the best team. The Giants are the champions of the NFL. Champion means nothing more and nothing less than the winner of first place in a competition. The best team is irrelevant.
February 6, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCJH
CJH, that's not the problem. The problem is the fact that the regular season is rendered, essentially, meaningless. The Patriots EARNED it during the regular season, but all that was worth was a playoff berth. As it stands, they may as well have lost 5 games, as long as they got in the playoffs. That's what we want to avoid in college football. That gut-wrenching feeling I had after the South Carolina and Tennessee games this year? That's a GOOD thing. I don't want to be left after losing in Jacksonville saying, hey, it's ok, we'll get 'em in the playoffs.
February 6, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Cody,

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?
February 6, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMarty
Of course I always want to beat Tech. I always want to beat Florida, and that'll never go away for me. But with an 8-team playoff, my kids would grow up in a world where it would be common that a loss to one of those teams wouldn't keep us out of the title race. Then it will feel like when, oh, the Cowboys beat the Redskins.

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?
February 7, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCody
Cody,

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.

February 7, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCJH
you guys arguing for 16 teams will make me side with CFR....As much as I don't like CFR and his big 11 pac 10 bias...I do agree that the regular season should stay important...I just think a 4 team playoff(mandatory conference champs) is few enough teams out of 119 to ensure the regular season would still be critical...anymore than that and your letting too much riff raff into the playoff...if you go undefeated and play at least a couple top 20 teams then you'll be in the top four...after that it is time to quit bitching...Only reason I want a playoff is because Auburn was #1 in 2004 and 1983 and should have had a chance to prove it ...a 4 tema playoff would have done the job...the michigan and ohio state fans know they would never be stuck in that position...but after teh last coupel years I'm startign to think it could happen ad that would make them demand a playoff.
February 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterGabe Harris
A four team playoff simply maintains an anti-competitive, anti-competition, anti-climatic sport. Eight schools account for more the top four finishes in the past 30 seasons than the other 144 schools combined that have played in I-A.
February 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCJH
CJH, that's probably because those eight schools have been the best ones most of the time in the past thirty seasons. The fact is that any school in a BCS conference that goes undefeated stands a very good chance of being the national champion. The fact that Ohio State, LSU, Florida, Texas and USC have won the last few championships (and a few others in the past thirty years) doesn't mean that my Hoosiers are getting cheated--it just means that in any given year, any of the aforementioned teams is likely to be better than Indiana.
February 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZick
Zick,

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.
February 14, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCJH
CJH:

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?
February 18, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterZick
Zick,

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?
February 23, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterCJH
Jackson began his career as a broadcaster in the state of Washington in 1952, when he called a radio game between Stanford and Washington. Jackson is currently a commentator on radio broadcasts for the Arkansas Razorbacks. The king of pop Michael Jackson three brothers have defended the decision to a concert in Cardiff in his memory, while the opinion of your doctor is underway in the U.S..
October 14, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterpenny stock to buy

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.