Final Thoughts on the BCS Championship Game

Random stuff that went through my mind during and following the BCS National Championship Game:

• Alabama is the better coached team. No wonder LSU fans are still mad at Saban leaving Baton Rouge.
• I thought using the height difference between the Alabama receivers and the one LSU corner back that got thrown at a bunch was genius. It takes a lot of 'want to' to over come a seven inch height difference regardless of your moniker.
• I am convinced Alabama's defense is the best in the country in 40 years. Give props to Smart/Saban for coaching them up, but even Ted Roof could have coached that bunch up. There are no less than seven likely future NFL starters in that group. 
• There is some poetic justice to the number of FGs attempted (and made!) in the game, considering the number missed in the first match-up.
• Also, if Oklahoma State fans want to be mad, be mad at Alabama's kickers for missing all those kicks in the first game. They hit one of them in regulation and the Cowboys play Alabama in New Orleans Monday night.
• Any chance Bobby Hebert is East Bank BJ on the Tigger Droppings Board?
• You think this win might get Saban a bigger statue?

Finally, is it April yet? I already miss football.

TD

Georgia the Key to 3 SEC BCS Teams?

Look, I didn't remotely entertain the thought of Georgia playing in the BCS National Championship game in 2007, exclusively because we didn't win the conference.  I felt that view was only consistent with my position in 2006 when Michigan was being shilled in consideration for that same thing.

That being said, Pre-Snap Read has laid out a scenario in which 3 teams can go to the BCS from the same conference.  If you are thinking that would be LSU, Alabama and Arkansas from the SEC, think again.  The short version of the rule is that when 1vs2 game is between two team from the same conference, and neither of those teams won their conference, they the conference champion would still play in the BCS.

Doing the math, that means Georgia winning the SEC, with LSU and Alabama OMG! rematch!@!!!!  I bet Mike Slive has an entire team of scientist working on this, with an entire team backing them up.  Talk about everyone wanting to blow up the BCS. If two SEC teams that didn't even win the conference (and one of them losing to anyone from the *lowly* SEC East) play for the National Championship, Dan Wetzel will have a stroke. Jim Delaney will pretend it is due to the kind of athletes we have here, but secretly covet Slive's genius.

Here's hoping Georgia can create that kind of chaos.
TD

Longest Tenured Coaches without a BCS Bowl

Each year, we publish the list of the longest currently tenured coaches at a BCS Conference school that haven't guided their current program to a BCS bowl game.

This is the third year that we've published the list. The 2007 Champ was Houston Nutt (Arkansas), and the 2008 Champ was Tommy Bowden (Clemson). For 2009, we have a four way tie for first place.

Here's the 2009 Top 10:

1.(T) Mike Leach (Texas Tech) - 2001
1.(T) Al Groh (UVA) - 2001
1.(T) Greg Schiano (Rutgers) - 2001
1.(T) Gary Pinkel (Missouri) - 2001
5.(T) Bobby Johnson (Vandy) - 2002
5.(T) Jeff Tedford (Cal) - 2002
7.(T) Rich Brooks (Kentucky) - 2003
7.(T) Mike Riley (Oregon State) - 2003
9.(T) Randy Edsall (UConn) - 2004* (Joined Big East)
9.(T) Mike Stoops (Arizona) - 2004

Off the list this year:

1. Tommy Bowden - Formerly #1 on the list. Terminated.

2. Sly Croom - Formerly #10 on the list. Terminated.

Just off the list:

The guys closest to making the list joined their jobs in 2005. Or in Jim Leavitt's case, their school joined a BCS conference.
Jim Leavitt (USF) - 2005* (Joined Big East)
Mike Gundy (Ok State) - 2005
Steve Spurrier (SC) - 2005
Dave Wannstedt (Pitt) - 2005

Tom O'Brien and Houston Nutt aren't eligible for the listing above as they are both new to their current schools. If you look at their career body of work, they would rank first and second respectively among active coaches.

The Camel Club:

• Phil Fulmer was the winner of this award for several years as he had gone without a BCS trip the longest after having tasted success. Fulmer had Joe Tiller nipping at his heels during that run. However, both are now out of the picture. The new yardstick for frustration after success is Ralph Friedgen (Maryland). The Fridge's last trip to a BCS bowl came following the 2001 season.
  
  
• Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) is second on the list with his last BCS bid coming in 2002.

How Long Should Teams Wait?
Every school's situation is different, but how long should a program give a coach before making a BCS game? Over the past 11 seasons, 37 different BCS schools have made BCS appearances (38 if you count Notre Dame). There are only 66 schools in BCS conferences including ND.

PWD

Boise State's Indignation?

Boise State's Supreme Ruler
The little guys are once again demanding greater access into the BCS National Title Game. Last week, Boise State's president Bob Kustra talked about the inherent lack of fairness in the BCS system for non-power conference schools (ht - fanblogs). Here's the money quote:

"...you would think that when Boise State opens its football season against the University of Oregon on September 3, the dream of a national championship would beat in the heart of every player, coach, alumnus and fan. Instead, there will only be a faint pulse thanks to the constraints placed upon us by the BCS. An estimated 6,000 student-athletes play for football teams that have no realistic chance of competing in a BCS bowl, given the hurdles placed in the path of the non-BCS conferences and teams."

My retort back in April to this sort of rhertoric was "Shouldn't Cinderella have to Earn her place?" I don't care if Boise State does go undefeated this season. They still shouldn't get a shot at the National Title in 2009. If you only play one BCS opponent, that's not enough. No where near enough.

Boise St. Home Schedule:
Oregon
Miami (Ohio)
UC-Davis
San Jose State
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico State

Boise State Away Schedule:
at Fresno State
at Bowling Green
at Tulsa
at Hawaii
at Louisiana Tech
at Utah State

They had the scheduling flexibility to add another quality opponent, but they elected to play UC-Davis (Div I-AA) instead. It's not like playing UC-Davis in front of 20,000 fans in Boise would be worth more financially than playing a BCS team on the road. So it wasn't a financial issue.

It's unlikely that Boise will play more than two teams next year that would be ranked in the Top 40, but Kustra thinks they deserve a shot at the big banana if they beat Oregon?

If I were to run 30 meters at the Olympics and then lay down on the track, I wouldn't be eligible for the Olympic Gold in the 100 meter dash. That's basically what Boise's schedule is. It's an attempt to declare greatness for an incomplete body of work.

Utah had a strong case for upward mobility last year. They beat Oregon State, TCU and BYU, and they played Michigan (it's not the Utes fault that UM stunk). All three of those teams were legitimate Top 25-30 caliber opponents. Utah was nothing like the sham Hawaii team from 2007. Were they good enough to hang with Florida or Oklahoma? I seriously doubt it. But at least they had an argument.

There's an argument from Boise that playing more tough competition makes it to difficult to make a BCS Bowl Game like the Fiesta Bowl. My argument...if you can't beat three BCS teams (or their equivalent Top 25 mid-majors), then what right do you have to the big BCS payouts? Much less the National Title Game?

PWD

Boise State's Indignation?

Boise State's Supreme Ruler
The little guys are once again demanding greater access into the BCS National Title Game. Last week, Boise State's president Bob Kustra talked about the inherent lack of fairness in the BCS system for non-power conference schools (ht - fanblogs). Here's the money quote:

"...you would think that when Boise State opens its football season against the University of Oregon on September 3, the dream of a national championship would beat in the heart of every player, coach, alumnus and fan. Instead, there will only be a faint pulse thanks to the constraints placed upon us by the BCS. An estimated 6,000 student-athletes play for football teams that have no realistic chance of competing in a BCS bowl, given the hurdles placed in the path of the non-BCS conferences and teams."

My retort back in April to this sort of rhertoric was "Shouldn't Cinderella have to Earn her place?" I don't care if Boise State does go undefeated this season. They still shouldn't get a shot at the National Title in 2009. If you only play one BCS opponent, that's not enough. No where near enough.

Boise St. Home Schedule:
Oregon
Miami (Ohio)
UC-Davis
San Jose State
Idaho
Nevada
New Mexico State

Boise State Away Schedule:
at Fresno State
at Bowling Green
at Tulsa
at Hawaii
at Louisiana Tech
at Utah State

They had the scheduling flexibility to add another quality opponent, but they elected to play UC-Davis (Div I-AA) instead. It's not like playing UC-Davis in front of 20,000 fans in Boise would be worth more financially than playing a BCS team on the road. So it wasn't a financial issue.

It's unlikely that Boise will play more than two teams next year that would be ranked in the Top 40, but Kustra thinks they deserve a shot at the big banana if they beat Oregon?

If I were to run 30 meters at the Olympics and then lay down on the track, I wouldn't be eligible for the Olympic Gold in the 100 meter dash. That's basically what Boise's schedule is. It's an attempt to declare greatness for an incomplete body of work.

Utah had a strong case for upward mobility last year. They beat Oregon State, TCU and BYU, and they played Michigan (it's not the Utes fault that UM stunk). All three of those teams were legitimate Top 25-30 caliber opponents. Utah was nothing like the sham Hawaii team from 2007. Were they good enough to hang with Florida or Oklahoma? I seriously doubt it. But at least they had an argument.

There's an argument from Boise that playing more tough competition makes it to difficult to make a BCS Bowl Game like the Fiesta Bowl. My argument...if you can't beat three BCS teams (or their equivalent Top 25 mid-majors), then what right do you have to the big BCS payouts? Much less the National Title Game?

PWD

Shouldn't Cinderella have to earn her place?

Blutarsky found an interesting article about the NCAA Tourney in the Christian Science Monitor of all places. The article suggests that the non-power conference schools aren't giving the mid-majors realistic access to the throne:

But on the 30th anniversary of the nail-biter match up between Larry Bird's Indiana State squad and Magic Johnson of Michigan State that sparked the March Madness tradition, the big question for many basketball fans is whether the Cinderella era is gone for good – the victim of recruiting dynasties, revenue-sharing that favors power conferences, and a tourney selection committee that has to face the ratings pressures of a $6 billion TV contract.

First off, every team in the NCAA tourney has to play six consecutive games. Home court advantage is minimal to coincidental, and there are no bye weeks. It's the flattest tourney structure imaginable. In one game, anyone can beat anyone.

But let's put that aside as Blutarsky did and address that this issue of "fairness" and accessibility argument exists for the football and the BCS as well. The bothersome issue to me is the media rarely looks back and acknowledges the simple fact that:

All powerful programs weren't always powerful
The following schools were considered mid-majors or non-BCS members not that long ago:

Team	Joined Power Conference	Notes
Arizona	Pac 10 in '78	Won NC in Hoops 20 Years Later. Five years after leaving the WAC, they hired Lute Olson. Five years after hiring Lute, they were in the Final Four.
Arizona State	Pac 10 in '78	Played for NC in football 18 years later.
Florida State	ACC in '91	Won NC in Football 3 seasons later. Was a laughing stock until mid to late '70s. Completely re-tooled in under 10 years.
Miami	Big East in '91	Won NC in football same year. Considered giving up football in the late '70s. Built from nothing to dominance in under 10 years.
Virginia Tech	Big East in '91	Played for NC in football nine seasons later. Also-ran until hiring Beamer in late '80s.
West Virginia	Big East in '91	Played for NC in '88 before joining league.

Closer to home...remember that UGA had a smaller stadium, fewer SEC titles and less regional or national recognition in football than Georgia Tech when Vince Dooley took over the program in 1964. In the 1950s, I've heard that you couldn't give away tickets to UGA games. As late as 1965, UGA was still giving up away games to schools like Michigan without return trips.

It was only 11 years after the trip to Ann Arbor that UGA played for the national title against Pitt, and we won the title 15 years after the win vs. Michigan.

The point -- There is a path to consistent national relevance. All you need is fan support and money. Fan support comes from hiring great coaches, winning games that interest your fans and investing in your program. Money comes from fan support and TV revenue.

Fan Support:
Since 1980, the only programs to win a share of the National Title while averaging less than 50,000 fans per game were Georgia Tech ('90), Colorado ('90) and Miami (multiple). I can't find the BYU attendance for '84, but I'd wager they were over 50,000 on average given the size of the facility that year.

Since 1990, the only schools to make the title game with a seating capacity of less than 70,000 were Georgia Tech (45k), Colorado (55k), Virginia Tech (54k). In basketball, the schools with arenas with capacities of less than 10k rarely win the NCAA title. The biggest exception being Duke.

You can't legislate your way to national relevance in football. You have to earn it on the field. Anybody, anywhere and anytime is how Bobby Bowden did it at FSU. He didn't go to his senator and say, "Life isn't fair. I need you to go back to Washington and make it easier for me to win football games."

We clawed our way to the top of the pile. Why shouldn't Boise, Utah, TCU and Fresno State do the same thing? Fighting your way to the top is much more fun than having it given to you.

PWD

Shouldn't Cinderella have to earn her place?

Blutarsky found an interesting article about the NCAA Tourney in the Christian Science Monitor of all places. The article suggests that the non-power conference schools aren't giving the mid-majors realistic access to the throne:

But on the 30th anniversary of the nail-biter match up between Larry Bird's Indiana State squad and Magic Johnson of Michigan State that sparked the March Madness tradition, the big question for many basketball fans is whether the Cinderella era is gone for good – the victim of recruiting dynasties, revenue-sharing that favors power conferences, and a tourney selection committee that has to face the ratings pressures of a $6 billion TV contract.

First off, every team in the NCAA tourney has to play six consecutive games. Home court advantage is minimal to coincidental, and there are no bye weeks. It's the flattest tourney structure imaginable. In one game, anyone can beat anyone.

But let's put that aside as Blutarsky did and address that this issue of "fairness" and accessibility argument exists for the football and the BCS as well. The bothersome issue to me is the media rarely looks back and acknowledges the simple fact that:

All powerful programs weren't always powerful
The following schools were considered mid-majors or non-BCS members not that long ago:

Team	Joined Power Conference	Notes
Arizona	Pac 10 in '78	Won NC in Hoops 20 Years Later. Five years after leaving the WAC, they hired Lute Olson. Five years after hiring Lute, they were in the Final Four.
Arizona State	Pac 10 in '78	Played for NC in football 18 years later.
Florida State	ACC in '91	Won NC in Football 3 seasons later. Was a laughing stock until mid to late '70s. Completely re-tooled in under 10 years.
Miami	Big East in '91	Won NC in football same year. Considered giving up football in the late '70s. Built from nothing to dominance in under 10 years.
Virginia Tech	Big East in '91	Played for NC in football nine seasons later. Also-ran until hiring Beamer in late '80s.
West Virginia	Big East in '91	Played for NC in '88 before joining league.

Closer to home...remember that UGA had a smaller stadium, fewer SEC titles and less regional or national recognition in football than Georgia Tech when Vince Dooley took over the program in 1964. In the 1950s, I've heard that you couldn't give away tickets to UGA games. As late as 1965, UGA was still giving up away games to schools like Michigan without return trips.

It was only 11 years after the trip to Ann Arbor that UGA played for the national title against Pitt, and we won the title 15 years after the win vs. Michigan.

The point -- There is a path to consistent national relevance. All you need is fan support and money. Fan support comes from hiring great coaches, winning games that interest your fans and investing in your program. Money comes from fan support and TV revenue.

Fan Support:
Since 1980, the only programs to win a share of the National Title while averaging less than 50,000 fans per game were Georgia Tech ('90), Colorado ('90) and Miami (multiple). I can't find the BYU attendance for '84, but I'd wager they were over 50,000 on average given the size of the facility that year.

Since 1990, the only schools to make the title game with a seating capacity of less than 70,000 were Georgia Tech (45k), Colorado (55k), Virginia Tech (54k). In basketball, the schools with arenas with capacities of less than 10k rarely win the NCAA title. The biggest exception being Duke.

You can't legislate your way to national relevance in football. You have to earn it on the field. Anybody, anywhere and anytime is how Bobby Bowden did it at FSU. He didn't go to his senator and say, "Life isn't fair. I need you to go back to Washington and make it easier for me to win football games."

We clawed our way to the top of the pile. Why shouldn't Boise, Utah, TCU and Fresno State do the same thing? Fighting your way to the top is much more fun than having it given to you.

PWD

DawgSports interviews a Great American

Every so often the US House of Representatives votes on non-binding resolutions which honor this group or that group. In Jan. 2007 and 2009, the Florida Delegation sent a resolution to the House floor congratulating the Florida Gators for winning the National Title.

Representative Jack Kingston of the Georgia 1st Congressional District voted against the resolution both times. Both times, I raised a glass in his dawgly honor. Kyle King of DawgSports.com thought Kingston's refusal to salute the Gators was tacky or petty. Not me.

After Kyle's most recent complaint, he was put in touch with the Congressman to discuss his vote. The result is a very funny interview between Kyle and Kingston.

PWD

DawgSports interviews a Great American

Every so often the US House of Representatives votes on non-binding resolutions which honor this group or that group. In Jan. 2007 and 2009, the Florida Delegation sent a resolution to the House floor congratulating the Florida Gators for winning the National Title.

Representative Jack Kingston of the Georgia 1st Congressional District voted against the resolution both times. Both times, I raised a glass in his dawgly honor. Kyle King of DawgSports.com thought Kingston's refusal to salute the Gators was tacky or petty. Not me.

After Kyle's most recent complaint, he was put in touch with the Congressman to discuss his vote. The result is a very funny interview between Kyle and Kingston.

PWD

Presidential Involvement in College Football?

As most of you know, President-Elect Barack Obama has publicly said that he would like to see College Football move towards a playoff system. Set aside for a moment if you will whether a playoff is a good thing or a bad thing.

How is government involvement in a private enterprise at that level of detail a good thing? Shouldn't the free market decide what sort of product (or method for deciding victory) is "best."

College Football ratings have an aggressive upwards trajectory. TV rights are selling for an all-time high for the sport as evidence by the $2.25 billion deal TV between the SEC and ESPN. It's not a product that needs government intervention to be "fixed."


Be Careful What You Wish For
All of that said. A College Football Playoff is a "Be Careful What You Wish For" endeavor. If we could get a system whereby the "Best" 8 Teams would battle it out for post-season supremacy, I'd be opened minded about it. That will not happen. To think that's what you would get would be to ignore everything that's happened over the past 20 years politically within college football.

The "Best 8 Teams" model is not what the NCAA, BCS Conferences and Non-BCS Conferences would give us. Instead, we would get a system with rules very similar to this:

1. An 8 Team Playoff whereby the 6 BCS Conference Champions are guaranteed an automatic birth. Any BCS conference commissioner agreeing to a system whereby his "champion" didn't get automatic access to the playoffs would be fired on the spot.

2. An accessible entry point for the best non-BCS Conference Champ to enter the playoffs. They would open the door for them slightly wider (like Top 10 or Top 12 finish) in order to avoid pesky lawsuits from non-BCS Conferences. Also, the 53 teams not involved in a BCS Conference would never vote in favor of a playoff system that didn't give them an accessible entry point.

3. Most years there would only be one at-large spot left. What criteria would be created to make sure that an independent like Notre Dame would be invited to fill that spot? A Top 8 Finish? A Top 10 Finish? There would most certainly be a loophole to grant them access, and no one is forcing ND into a conference against their will.

If you are an SEC or Big 12 fan, your conferences are most likely to produce a playoff champion. That's why all other conferences would aggressively work to limit your access to that one remaining at-large spot.

For instance, Big 10 Conference members -- who don't play an championship game -- would have a much easier path to the one at-large spot.

In the scenario above, it's very easy to see the #4, 5 and/or 6 teams in the nation being left out of an playoff in favor of lesser ACC, Big East, non-BCS conference members and/or Notre Dame. This year either the SEC runner-up or the Big 12 runner-up would be sitting at home in favor of a 4 or 5 loss Big East or ACC Champ.

How is that a better system? How does that bring on less controversy? Because that's the outcome you most certainly will get if we make a change for an 8 team bracket.

I keep hearing, "It's what everyone wants." I would argue that's only because "everyone" doesn't understand what it is that they are going to get if they make their request.

See Also:

-- How can it be a good idea if Mike Adams supports it? - AJC
-- How can it be a good idea if Urban Meyer supports it? - Blutarsky
-- Recognizing the Complexity - Mandel

PWD


(NOTE: This is a FOOTBALL discussion. If you hate / love the president-elect or the sitting president, I respect your opinion. But I don't want to moderate a discussion on The Presidency. I'd rather...if at all possible...have the comments centered around the existing BCS debate. I know that's asking a lot. But please help me out. You're not going to convince anyone reading a football blog comments area that their views on the 43rd or 44th president of the US are "wrong.")

Presidential Involvement in College Football?

As most of you know, President-Elect Barack Obama has publicly said that he would like to see College Football move towards a playoff system. Set aside for a moment if you will whether a playoff is a good thing or a bad thing.

How is government involvement in a private enterprise at that level of detail a good thing? Shouldn't the free market decide what sort of product (or method for deciding victory) is "best."

College Football ratings have an aggressive upwards trajectory. TV rights are selling for an all-time high for the sport as evidence by the $2.25 billion deal TV between the SEC and ESPN. It's not a product that needs government intervention to be "fixed."


Be Careful What You Wish For
All of that said. A College Football Playoff is a "Be Careful What You Wish For" endeavor. If we could get a system whereby the "Best" 8 Teams would battle it out for post-season supremacy, I'd be opened minded about it. That will not happen. To think that's what you would get would be to ignore everything that's happened over the past 20 years politically within college football.

The "Best 8 Teams" model is not what the NCAA, BCS Conferences and Non-BCS Conferences would give us. Instead, we would get a system with rules very similar to this:

1. An 8 Team Playoff whereby the 6 BCS Conference Champions are guaranteed an automatic birth. Any BCS conference commissioner agreeing to a system whereby his "champion" didn't get automatic access to the playoffs would be fired on the spot.

2. An accessible entry point for the best non-BCS Conference Champ to enter the playoffs. They would open the door for them slightly wider (like Top 10 or Top 12 finish) in order to avoid pesky lawsuits from non-BCS Conferences. Also, the 53 teams not involved in a BCS Conference would never vote in favor of a playoff system that didn't give them an accessible entry point.

3. Most years there would only be one at-large spot left. What criteria would be created to make sure that an independent like Notre Dame would be invited to fill that spot? A Top 8 Finish? A Top 10 Finish? There would most certainly be a loophole to grant them access, and no one is forcing ND into a conference against their will.

If you are an SEC or Big 12 fan, your conferences are most likely to produce a playoff champion. That's why all other conferences would aggressively work to limit your access to that one remaining at-large spot.

For instance, Big 10 Conference members -- who don't play an championship game -- would have a much easier path to the one at-large spot.

In the scenario above, it's very easy to see the #4, 5 and/or 6 teams in the nation being left out of an playoff in favor of lesser ACC, Big East, non-BCS conference members and/or Notre Dame. This year either the SEC runner-up or the Big 12 runner-up would be sitting at home in favor of a 4 or 5 loss Big East or ACC Champ.

How is that a better system? How does that bring on less controversy? Because that's the outcome you most certainly will get if we make a change for an 8 team bracket.

I keep hearing, "It's what everyone wants." I would argue that's only because "everyone" doesn't understand what it is that they are going to get if they make their request.

See Also:

-- How can it be a good idea if Mike Adams supports it? - AJC
-- How can it be a good idea if Urban Meyer supports it? - Blutarsky
-- Recognizing the Complexity - Mandel

PWD


(NOTE: This is a FOOTBALL discussion. If you hate / love the president-elect or the sitting president, I respect your opinion. But I don't want to moderate a discussion on The Presidency. I'd rather...if at all possible...have the comments centered around the existing BCS debate. I know that's asking a lot. But please help me out. You're not going to convince anyone reading a football blog comments area that their views on the 43rd or 44th president of the US are "wrong.")