In the old folktale - "The tortoise and the hare", the tortoise wins because he doggedly sticks to his goal. The moral of the story can be taken in quite a few ways but one I've grown to appreciate is that sometimes in life going slower is actually going faster. Stonewall Jackson was a big proponent of this as he found that his men could march further if he had a mandatory rest of 10 minutes every hour. Any NASCAR driver could tell you the same thing ... sometimes you need to go slow to go fast.
Jim Tressel was the epitome of slow and steady. He was big on preparation and no one ever accused him of being hasty. His idea of pressuring a player was firm discussions. Compare that with Urban Meyer. He's big on preparation too but moves with a manic passion you never saw with Coach Tressel.
Tressel's method develops team unity. These players that are more confident in themselves and more likely to produce in crunch time. I think these players have more fun as it is less pressure packed and a more family type atmosphere. This is important in developing cohesion but giving players freedom to be adults isn't always a positive as we saw with the TAT5.
Urban's method creates better individual players. Everyone pushes themselves to the limit all the time. There is no time off. There is no quit. This is impossible to keep up forever and a good example is what happened at the end of Urban's tenure at Florida. You could make a pretty good argument that Urban had pushed the program so hard for so long that a good portion of them players rebelled and he lost control of the program. When that happened he knew it needed a reboot and frankly that was easier to accomplish with a new coach. In effect, he fired himself.
No doubt either method can have great results. The key is knowing when to push on the gas and when to apply the brake. Urban says he's learned during his time off how to use the brake but the only thing for sure is the Ohio State program has currently got the pedal on the floor and is racing at full speed for the turn.
I'd really like to see obvious signs that Coach Meyer knows how to apply the brake in the next year or I really doubt his tenure will be any longer than what he was able to achieve at Florida.
Post note - This blog entry might be influenced by the fact the Daytona 500 was yesterday.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Gene Smith - Should he stay or should he go?
Someone posted on the Ozone yesterday that it was rumored that Ohio State's athletic director was getting a contract extension. That set off a firestorm of protest on the forum from most of the posters who think he should be fired. I include myself in that group but sometimes it amazes me how far some posters go in their blame of the man. The following was a typical response:
When Gene Smith came to Ohio State in 2005 there were two facts that greatly has affected subsequent events. 1) he came into a situation where the previous AD was pressured to quit due to NCAA violations and the expectation was that the new AD would tighten things and 2) the Ohio State football team had recently won the national championship and its coach was extremely popular with fans, alumni, and boosters.
The first point is a bit harsh to the previous AD, Andy Geiger, as he had done a lot to make Ohio State's compliance department one of the best in the country. Many outsiders scoff at that notion but it is something that Ohio State fans expect as it allows us to hold our head high and know we won the right way (that's also what makes the recent violations more painful). Geiger made a statement last year that
Jim Tressel is a great man and a great coach. He is not a perfect man. Every good coach develops a style that works for them and is usually based on their personality. Coach Tressel's system was a family atmosphere combined with micromanagement and there was very little that got by his notice in the locker room. His style was also that he liked to take care of things in house with his usual punishment a fatherly mixture of harshness, suspensions, and forgiveness. I believe his motives were pure but this had the unfortunate side effect of lessening compliance.
Andy Geiger made mention of this in Jim Tressel's annual reviews that he was unsatisfactory in self reporting violations in a timely manner. The statements by Geiger make it clear that Jim Tressel's habit of not reporting violations wasn't a one time thing.
When a manager is hired into a job they have a few decisions that need to be made immediately. The most important is what to do with their direct reports. It is human nature that a manager wants someone on their staff that is "their" person. Some immediately reorganize and some take years. The key is a manager has to take charge and a good example is what Urban Meyer did in the football program by retaining only 3 coaches from Jim Tressel. Actions like these make sure you have loyal people in your organization and ensures that their is little time wasted in conversations like - "But we used to do it this way..."
Contrast that with the Gene Smith's situation -- he needed to make changes and he had a popular coach with alumni/board support that like the way he was doing things. It was a situation tailor made for disaster as Smith really didn't have the power to make changes in the football program. That's why most of the charges against him are invalid. Let's look at the charges listed above:
December 2010, he assured everyone that he investigated and the original Tat5 was it. Nothing else. - Jim Tressel lied to Gene Smith's investigators. At the time this statement was correct and he can't be expected to be a mind reader.
January 2011, he discovers that Tressel knew about all this back in April 2010. - This was part of an annual audit the compliance department does and is proof that they are doing their job. The sad truth is this wouldn't have been discovered at most other schools because they don't have the number of resources used at Ohio State to be able to conduct audits.
Story breaks in early March 2011. Ohio State hastily calls a news conference where it looks to everyone like they got caught with their pants down. They decide to retain Tressel. - They did get caught with their pants down but only because information was leaked to a reporter from the NCAA. They were investigating and had notified the NCAA when it occurred. They were about a week away from filing when the story broke. The press conference was a disaster but not because of Gene Smith. His best work of the year was done at that press conference but it was overshadowed by Gee's "I hope he doesn't fire me" and Tressel's incoherent ramblings that said nothing when he needed to say a lot. He could get away with that approach in a press conference after a gameday victory but his habit of stonewalling made everyone involved look stupid on this day.
Memorial Day - Ohio State fires Tressel. Why? Because between that press conference and Memorial Day, the rest of the CFB world finds out what Gene Smith already knew. And Gene Smith BADLY miscalculated how much pressure he could endure with his original decision to retain Tressel. - This statement couldn't be further from the truth. I have no doubt that Gene Smith believed that Tressel's actions warranted firing but realized that the coach's popularity made that difficult. The thing is a situation of this magnitude wasn't made by Gee/Smith but when the board of trustees met as there's no way they didn't know about this before the end of February. At this meeting the Tressel supporters won out and it was decided to keep him. At the time they had the assurance from Tressel that he would make a public apology for his actions. When Tressel didn't do this (and he still hasn't) it became tougher and tougher to support him. The clincher was that fans started to turn on him. I think that surprised the board because initially Buckeye fans were almost unanimously in their support to keep the coach but it slowly became apparent that this support was waning quickly. Add to the additional NCAA violations if the Buckeyes kept Tressel and you have a situation where the board realized that Tressel had to go. Gene Smith was merely the messenger in all this.
Summer 2011 - more NCAA violations are committed - again under his watch. - The violations actually occurred earlier but once again an AD should not be held accountable for players committing violations. Discovering a violation is actually showing that an AD is doing their job.
Fall 2011 - Gene Smith tells the world we'll forfeit the 2010 season but the NCAA won't levy a bowl ban. - The first part was a no brainer as when it was realized that Jim Tressel knowingly played ineligible players, that season had to be forfeit. The second part is a bit of a problem and I will address it later. The interesting thing this person doesn't mention is that in the fall, due to the BobbyD allegations, a "failure to monitor" charge is added to Ohio State's violations. This is the only thing that occurred in the NCAA reports that can be attributed to Gene Smith and his staff. The interesting part of this is Bobby D has been a close part of Ohio State since the 80s but there is no doubt a few paperwork items occurred on Gene Smith's watch.
December 2011 - Decides to accept the Gator Bowl bid. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA levies...a bowl ban. - In this long list this is the only accurate charge. Gene Smith should have self penalized the school the 2011 Gator Bowl if there was any possibility of a bowl ban in 2012. He didn't do this and it was a major failing on his part.
Gene Smith gets a lot of grief from fans. I want him gone too and my reasons are simple:
I'm sure there would be other things that Gene Smith has done that I'd include on this list if I were privy to the information. The truth is we don't see the whole picture so it is hard for fans to judge. However, I know the 3 reasons I've listed are true and that's enough for me. I really hope the recent rumors that he's gotten an extension aren't true as it would really make me question the leadership at the school.
First - the violations happened on his watch.
- December 2010, he assured everyone that he investigated and the original Tat5 was it. Nothing else.
- Then, in January 2011, he discovers that Tressel knew about all this back in April 2010. Whoops. Missed that in his "investigation".
- He had two months until the rest of the world knew what he knew in January. Story breaks in early March 2011. Ohio State hastily calls a news conference where it looks to everyone like they got caught with their pants down. They decide to retain Tressel.
- Memorial Day - Ohio State fires Tressel. Why? Because between that press conference and Memorial Day, the rest of the CFB world finds out what Gene Smith already knew. And Gene Smith BADLY miscalculated how much pressure he could endure with his original decision to retain Tressel.
- Summer 2011 - more NCAA violations are committed - again under his watch.
- Fall 2011 - Gene Smith tells the world we'll forfeit the 2010 season but the NCAA won't levy a bowl ban.
- December 2011 - Decides to accept the Gator Bowl bid. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA levies...a bowl ban.
I might have missed a mistake along the way. I apologize. Its so hard to keep up with Gene's screw-ups.This is a typical refrain about Gene Smith and this poster along with most Buckeye fans really miss the point of where he fails.
When Gene Smith came to Ohio State in 2005 there were two facts that greatly has affected subsequent events. 1) he came into a situation where the previous AD was pressured to quit due to NCAA violations and the expectation was that the new AD would tighten things and 2) the Ohio State football team had recently won the national championship and its coach was extremely popular with fans, alumni, and boosters.
The first point is a bit harsh to the previous AD, Andy Geiger, as he had done a lot to make Ohio State's compliance department one of the best in the country. Many outsiders scoff at that notion but it is something that Ohio State fans expect as it allows us to hold our head high and know we won the right way (that's also what makes the recent violations more painful). Geiger made a statement last year that
"The setup that we had (when he was director of athletics) was extremely proactive," Geiger said. "It's my understanding that the current compliance people went to the car dealers, they are all over those kinds of things, they were doing their best to try to keep up with it, but there is, in Columbus, a very large community with a nationally prominent program, the Ohio State football program, that is just over the top in importance, in not only Columbus but in the state. That attracts all kinds of things to it, some of which is very, very difficult to control. There isn't any way that a compliance department, an Athletic Director or a football coach or whole staff of football coaches can be with people in a program 24/7. There are going to be influences, there are going to be relationships that built over time that can turn out to be negative and be very damaging. I experienced that, and it has been experienced one more time."Some may look at this as excuse making but there is a lot of truth in it. Any organization that has to manage hundreds of people are going to find that a small percentage will always break the rules no matter how many times you educate them. In this situation the only thing that a compliance department can do is put procedures into place that are designed to catch offenders. This has a two fold purpose which first is to punish the offenders but it also is a deterrent to others so these acts aren't repeated.
Jim Tressel is a great man and a great coach. He is not a perfect man. Every good coach develops a style that works for them and is usually based on their personality. Coach Tressel's system was a family atmosphere combined with micromanagement and there was very little that got by his notice in the locker room. His style was also that he liked to take care of things in house with his usual punishment a fatherly mixture of harshness, suspensions, and forgiveness. I believe his motives were pure but this had the unfortunate side effect of lessening compliance.
Andy Geiger made mention of this in Jim Tressel's annual reviews that he was unsatisfactory in self reporting violations in a timely manner. The statements by Geiger make it clear that Jim Tressel's habit of not reporting violations wasn't a one time thing.
When a manager is hired into a job they have a few decisions that need to be made immediately. The most important is what to do with their direct reports. It is human nature that a manager wants someone on their staff that is "their" person. Some immediately reorganize and some take years. The key is a manager has to take charge and a good example is what Urban Meyer did in the football program by retaining only 3 coaches from Jim Tressel. Actions like these make sure you have loyal people in your organization and ensures that their is little time wasted in conversations like - "But we used to do it this way..."
Contrast that with the Gene Smith's situation -- he needed to make changes and he had a popular coach with alumni/board support that like the way he was doing things. It was a situation tailor made for disaster as Smith really didn't have the power to make changes in the football program. That's why most of the charges against him are invalid. Let's look at the charges listed above:
December 2010, he assured everyone that he investigated and the original Tat5 was it. Nothing else. - Jim Tressel lied to Gene Smith's investigators. At the time this statement was correct and he can't be expected to be a mind reader.
January 2011, he discovers that Tressel knew about all this back in April 2010. - This was part of an annual audit the compliance department does and is proof that they are doing their job. The sad truth is this wouldn't have been discovered at most other schools because they don't have the number of resources used at Ohio State to be able to conduct audits.
Story breaks in early March 2011. Ohio State hastily calls a news conference where it looks to everyone like they got caught with their pants down. They decide to retain Tressel. - They did get caught with their pants down but only because information was leaked to a reporter from the NCAA. They were investigating and had notified the NCAA when it occurred. They were about a week away from filing when the story broke. The press conference was a disaster but not because of Gene Smith. His best work of the year was done at that press conference but it was overshadowed by Gee's "I hope he doesn't fire me" and Tressel's incoherent ramblings that said nothing when he needed to say a lot. He could get away with that approach in a press conference after a gameday victory but his habit of stonewalling made everyone involved look stupid on this day.
Memorial Day - Ohio State fires Tressel. Why? Because between that press conference and Memorial Day, the rest of the CFB world finds out what Gene Smith already knew. And Gene Smith BADLY miscalculated how much pressure he could endure with his original decision to retain Tressel. - This statement couldn't be further from the truth. I have no doubt that Gene Smith believed that Tressel's actions warranted firing but realized that the coach's popularity made that difficult. The thing is a situation of this magnitude wasn't made by Gee/Smith but when the board of trustees met as there's no way they didn't know about this before the end of February. At this meeting the Tressel supporters won out and it was decided to keep him. At the time they had the assurance from Tressel that he would make a public apology for his actions. When Tressel didn't do this (and he still hasn't) it became tougher and tougher to support him. The clincher was that fans started to turn on him. I think that surprised the board because initially Buckeye fans were almost unanimously in their support to keep the coach but it slowly became apparent that this support was waning quickly. Add to the additional NCAA violations if the Buckeyes kept Tressel and you have a situation where the board realized that Tressel had to go. Gene Smith was merely the messenger in all this.
Summer 2011 - more NCAA violations are committed - again under his watch. - The violations actually occurred earlier but once again an AD should not be held accountable for players committing violations. Discovering a violation is actually showing that an AD is doing their job.
Fall 2011 - Gene Smith tells the world we'll forfeit the 2010 season but the NCAA won't levy a bowl ban. - The first part was a no brainer as when it was realized that Jim Tressel knowingly played ineligible players, that season had to be forfeit. The second part is a bit of a problem and I will address it later. The interesting thing this person doesn't mention is that in the fall, due to the BobbyD allegations, a "failure to monitor" charge is added to Ohio State's violations. This is the only thing that occurred in the NCAA reports that can be attributed to Gene Smith and his staff. The interesting part of this is Bobby D has been a close part of Ohio State since the 80s but there is no doubt a few paperwork items occurred on Gene Smith's watch.
December 2011 - Decides to accept the Gator Bowl bid. Shortly thereafter, the NCAA levies...a bowl ban. - In this long list this is the only accurate charge. Gene Smith should have self penalized the school the 2011 Gator Bowl if there was any possibility of a bowl ban in 2012. He didn't do this and it was a major failing on his part.
Gene Smith gets a lot of grief from fans. I want him gone too and my reasons are simple:
- He doesn't protect Ohio State tradition - He willingly went along with the plan to separate Ohio State and Michigan in the new divisional structure and was OK with moving The Game to a spot earlier in the season. The Big Ten is built on the Ohio State - Michigan game and the rest of the league profits from it. To sell out that tradition to get a few more dollars from the television networks is unpardonable and shows that he doesn't have fans interest at heart.
- He is out of his depth at times - While it was nice that he was the president of the NCAA basketball tournament selection committee last season, anyone that watched the selection show saw a man that couldn't explain the rankings. I'm sure he was a bit preoccupied as this occurred at the height of the Tressel scandal but he should have resigned if that was the case. This wasn't the only time this has happened and it is a far cry from what we got from Andy Geiger and what Ohio State deserves.
- His bowl decision - I've wanted him gone since he tried to move "The Game" but this was no doubt his worst decision since becoming the Ohio State AD. Some have said that the NCAA would have just made it a two year bowl ban if he self accessed one last year but as someone on the Ozone said, "We don't know that for sure and it certainly couldn't have hurt."
I'm sure there would be other things that Gene Smith has done that I'd include on this list if I were privy to the information. The truth is we don't see the whole picture so it is hard for fans to judge. However, I know the 3 reasons I've listed are true and that's enough for me. I really hope the recent rumors that he's gotten an extension aren't true as it would really make me question the leadership at the school.
Monday, February 20, 2012
The Hierarchy of College Football
In one of my last articles I mentioned that the big time schools have symbiotic relationship with the other universities. Simply put, without the other schools to lose games, the big powers would have to play each other which would dramatically increase losses. After writing that I thought it might be nice to identify the traditional powers and what makes them better than everyone else. A cynic might jump to the conclusion that it's ultimately about money and certainly there is truth in that. Before we jump to conclusions, I want to identify 4 classes of teams: Major, Minor, Doormats, and Cannon Fodder.
Major Powers
In my mind there are 15 teams that are major powers. In my mind a traditional power is made up of 2 things - wins and fans that love to what their team win. Here is the breakdown by Conference:
Big Ten
Michigan
Ohio State
Nebraska
Penn State
SEC
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Big 12
Texas
Oklahoma
ACC
Florida State
Pac 12
USC
Independents
Notre Dame
The list was a lot easier to compile than I thought. I essentially used two lists: total wins and stadium size. The 15 schools listed are the top 16 in terms of overall winning percentage (Miami-FL is 14th). They also have 15 of the top 16 stadiums in terms of capacity (Texas A&M is 13th). They've also won 42 of the last 50 NCAA championships with Miami the main culprit this isn't on the list with 5.
These facts alone demonstrate pretty clearly the have / have-not nature of college football.
Minor Powers
I am sure there are fans of teams not on the list that would feel slighted which is why I created another category of 17 which I call Minor Powers: Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, West Virginia, Colorado, Virginia Tech, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, TCU, Missouri, and Arkansas. These schools occasionally become relevant nationally but due to lack of resources and recruiting this only lasts a few season. A few schools like Miami have threatened to be considered a "traditional power" but no other schools really fit the criteria. Miami-FL is close as they've won 5 national championships over the last few decades. I didn't include them because 1) they don't have their own stadium and 2) their fan base is ridiculously small and fickle. They win due to the sheer talent available in South Florida as there isn't any close options nearby (Kentucky is almost as close to the Florida State campus as Miami).
Doormats
Schools not on either of the lists above but in one of the larger conferences - SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac 12, and Big East would be considered a doormat. That isn't to mean these schools don't have good teams or vie for major bowls from time to time but in the long term view of college football they exist in their leagues solely to provide wins for the traditional powers.
Cannon Fodder
Teams in schools from the Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC are the bottom rung in terms of national relevance. They do provide an important service as they are the primary opponents in the "preseason" cannon fodder games. These are nice tune ups to get teams ready for the conference schedule, provide both schools with a little bit of income, and make alumni happy as it greases the way to be bowl eligible.
That in a nutshell is the hierarchy in college football. It has been this way for a long time and will continue far into the future. The key is revenue. Oregon and Oklahoma State have made a pretty good push in recent years mainly because of wealthy alumni that have put millions of their money into the schools. That isn't sustainable long term as eventually their money will run out but if fans start to consistently fill their stadiums that will allow them to expand and further increase revenue. When that happens, someone will be added to the list. Until then you should expect the 15 school listed above to continue to win just about every year.
Major Powers
In my mind there are 15 teams that are major powers. In my mind a traditional power is made up of 2 things - wins and fans that love to what their team win. Here is the breakdown by Conference:
Big Ten
Michigan
Ohio State
Nebraska
Penn State
SEC
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Big 12
Texas
Oklahoma
ACC
Florida State
Pac 12
USC
Independents
Notre Dame
The list was a lot easier to compile than I thought. I essentially used two lists: total wins and stadium size. The 15 schools listed are the top 16 in terms of overall winning percentage (Miami-FL is 14th). They also have 15 of the top 16 stadiums in terms of capacity (Texas A&M is 13th). They've also won 42 of the last 50 NCAA championships with Miami the main culprit this isn't on the list with 5.
These facts alone demonstrate pretty clearly the have / have-not nature of college football.
Minor Powers
I am sure there are fans of teams not on the list that would feel slighted which is why I created another category of 17 which I call Minor Powers: Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami-FL, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona State, West Virginia, Colorado, Virginia Tech, Boise State, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, TCU, Missouri, and Arkansas. These schools occasionally become relevant nationally but due to lack of resources and recruiting this only lasts a few season. A few schools like Miami have threatened to be considered a "traditional power" but no other schools really fit the criteria. Miami-FL is close as they've won 5 national championships over the last few decades. I didn't include them because 1) they don't have their own stadium and 2) their fan base is ridiculously small and fickle. They win due to the sheer talent available in South Florida as there isn't any close options nearby (Kentucky is almost as close to the Florida State campus as Miami).
Doormats
Schools not on either of the lists above but in one of the larger conferences - SEC, Big Ten, ACC, Big 12, Pac 12, and Big East would be considered a doormat. That isn't to mean these schools don't have good teams or vie for major bowls from time to time but in the long term view of college football they exist in their leagues solely to provide wins for the traditional powers.
Cannon Fodder
Teams in schools from the Mountain West, Conference USA, MAC, Sun Belt, and WAC are the bottom rung in terms of national relevance. They do provide an important service as they are the primary opponents in the "preseason" cannon fodder games. These are nice tune ups to get teams ready for the conference schedule, provide both schools with a little bit of income, and make alumni happy as it greases the way to be bowl eligible.
That in a nutshell is the hierarchy in college football. It has been this way for a long time and will continue far into the future. The key is revenue. Oregon and Oklahoma State have made a pretty good push in recent years mainly because of wealthy alumni that have put millions of their money into the schools. That isn't sustainable long term as eventually their money will run out but if fans start to consistently fill their stadiums that will allow them to expand and further increase revenue. When that happens, someone will be added to the list. Until then you should expect the 15 school listed above to continue to win just about every year.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
The B1G Playoff Option - Part 3 - 4 is a bore, 8 is great!
In my last article I mentioned how I saw a 4 team playoff working but the bottom line is nothing that is implemented will be perfect. The perfect system isn't far away from the current proposals but they need to think a little bigger and goto an 8 team playoff.
How the system would work is the conference championship games would occur on Thanksgiving weekend. Not only does this spotlight the conference championships during a holiday for prime viewing but it also gives space for 2 weeks of playoffs. The first round of the playoffs would occur the next weekend with the 2nd round the week after that. This season that would have put the games on December 3rd and 10th though you could move them around to maximize viewership. At the end of the conference championships teams would be ranked from 1st to 8th and a bracket would be created with 1st playing 8th, and so on. The higher seeded team would get the home game. After the first week's games, the victors would play again with the higher seed being the home team. Here is an example using the 2011 results:
Kansas St @ LSU
Boise State @ Alabama
How the system would work is the conference championship games would occur on Thanksgiving weekend. Not only does this spotlight the conference championships during a holiday for prime viewing but it also gives space for 2 weeks of playoffs. The first round of the playoffs would occur the next weekend with the 2nd round the week after that. This season that would have put the games on December 3rd and 10th though you could move them around to maximize viewership. At the end of the conference championships teams would be ranked from 1st to 8th and a bracket would be created with 1st playing 8th, and so on. The higher seeded team would get the home game. After the first week's games, the victors would play again with the higher seed being the home team. Here is an example using the 2011 results:
Kansas St @ LSU
Boise State @ Alabama
Arkansas @ Oklahoma State
Oregon @ Stanford
This is pretty good and there is a lot to like here. The champs of the SEC, MWC, Big 12, and Pac 12 are all represented. The others are 2 SEC, 1 Pac 12, and 1 Big 12.
The only flaw with this system is it is essentially an SEC/Pac12/Big12 competition which leaves out a large portion of the population (Midwest and East Coast). Many of these schools also were pretty much locks for a top 8 spot all season so this would lessen desire to watch games in other areas of the country.
How could you make it more competitive and encourage others to tune in? By limiting the at large bid and making winning the conference championship more important. My proposal would be to take the top 6 conference champions as well as the top 2 at large teams. Additionally, only conference champions would be able to host a home game in the first round. Here's how 2011 would have looked:
Clemson @ LSU
Wisconsin @ Oklahoma State
Stanford @ Oregon
Alabama @ Boise State
This system drops Kansas State and Arkansas for league champions Wisconsin and Clemson. I personally prefer this situation as it again puts the pressure on teams to win their league. Notice that both Alabama and Stanford are playing the same teams but this time they are no longer the home team? Part of that is just pure luck the way the rankings fell but this system punished them for not winning their league but still gives them the opportunity to win albeit with a tougher track.
I personally like this a lot and can only imagine sitting down to watch 3 weekends of football starting with the conference championship games that have a direct impact on the playoffs then seeing the first two rounds as shown above. I'd think the television rating would be through the roof especially if the bowls for the non-qualifiers started the following week. Bowl games would continue focused on Friday and Saturdays then most days between Christmas and New Years culminating in a day long set of games on New Years day. The College "Superbowl" would then be held on the Saturday right afterward to maximize viewership.
There are a few issues with this method as well.
What would happen if we saw a bunch of upsets during the championship games? Here's how the system would look if we had the same UCLA/Georgia upsets mentioned in my last post:
UCLA @ Oklahoma St
Wisconsin @ Georgia
Alabama @ Boise State
Stanford @ Clemson
Again this would create a series of howls around college football but it wouldn't be much different than what occurs before every March Madness. The teams affected here would be LSU and Oregon because they lost. I'd love it because of the pressure that would occur to win your league championship though I'm sure some would argue it would be less likely to give you a true national champion. Also note that some would argue that Stanford/Alabama had an easier path because they lost the head to head matchup. Despite that I like it but we will most likely never see something like this.
The reason this won't happen is because this system is more likely to reward smaller schools at the expense of the big schools. To illustrate this I ran the numbers for a playoff under both scenarios for the last 6 years and under the first scenario the Big 4 (B1G, SEC, P12, B12) had 81% of the playoff spots while under the second scenario they only got 73%. Any solution that negatively impacts the big conferences that make all the money isn't a solution that can win.
So if we ever get to a point where we can have an 8 team playoff we are most likely stuck with the simplest solution of using the top 8 from the BCS. I'm not a big fan of that because it will lessen the regular season but money is ultimately the name of the game here and this solution will maximize revenue for the people calling the shots.
My final article on this subject is a look at the how the money, which is driver of all this change, will be split.
The B1G Playoff Option - Part 2 - Implications
My last article spoke to why a playoff is being proposed by college football. This one will look at how I think it will be implemented.
For a long time the opponents have given a few excuses why a playoff is bad for college football. I've always felt it was a cop out but they were mainly centered on protecting the regular season. This season turned that idea on its head as Alabama played LSU in October to determine who would represent the SEC West in their championship game. LSU won that game but the way the polls worked by the end of the season LSU was #1 and Alabama was #2 so they were chosen to play again in the BCS game. To many fans this felt like a betrayal of what has always been the focus of the BCS because if a school plays another, loses then plays them again in the championship does the regular season really matter? It doesn't matter if the two teams were the best in the country (I happen to believe that they were), the key is they'd already played and to play again seemed wrong. Many fans seemed to agree and this year's BCS game got terrible ratings which was the final impetus for Delany's statement.
So how would a system work under the Delany plan? Most people feel that the best system is to take the top 4 BCS teams and match them up with the top 2 getting a home game. This would have created the following match up this year:
Stanford @ LSU
Oklahoma St @ Alabama
These games would have been very interesting to watch but the question is: does it honor the regular season? The answer is it really doesn't. I mentioned earlier that Alabama didn't win their conference but neither did Stanford. Stanford lost to Oregon head to head but Oregon lost to USC a two weeks later dropping them below Stanford in the polls. Just like LSU, because of their head to head win, Oregon went to the Pac 12 championship game and beat UCLA to win the league. Does including Stanford over Oregon make sense? Does it honor the regular season?
Some may say that the BCS computer rankings are good thing as it creates tension every week. I agree that it has its uses but evidence on a football field trumps any computer generated data. For that reason, Oregon has a much better claim to be included than Stanford as they won the head to head and won the league championship game. Something like this happens about every year which is why I would propose that the highest ranked conference champions be included in the 4 team playoff. For 2011, we would have seen these matchups:
Boise State @ LSU
Oregon @ Oklahoma State
I'm sure Stanford and Alabama fans would be livid under a scenario like this but my advice would be to win your league so there isn't an issue. One thing this would do is make winning your league the first step to becoming a national champion. This would make the refular season even more important than it is today and it would encourage fans from rival conferences to watch key matchups which would only help viewership.
There is a flaw in this plan and that is -- What happens if there is an upset in a conference championship game?
That's a good question and one without an easy answer. The best answer is to go to an 8 team playoff but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. So we need to have an idea of how our system would work if we have a lot of upsets like in 2007. For consistency's sake we will stick with the 2011 season but assume that the underdog won in the SEC (Georgia) and Pac 12 (UCLA) game. Under this scenario, I'm pretty confident that the top four in the BCS would have been the same although LSU probably would have been 4th and everyone else would have moved up. Would that be a fair championship? 3 of the 4 teams didn't win their conference but they'd be playing for a national title. Here's where the rankings would have been of the conference champions.
3 - Okla State
7 - Boise State
10 - Wisconsin
15 - Clemson
16 - Georgia (9)
18 - TCU
23 - West Virginia
NA - UCLA (20)
No doubt both UCLA and Georgia would have improved so I've given a tenative rank in parenthesis of how I think they would have finished if they won. That would have given us a game of of the following:
Wisconsin @ Oklahoma State
Georgia @ Boise State
If something like this happened, people in college football would be howling for change. Most of these teams weren't considered elite last season so how could they be considered for the national championship?
The answer is simple: THEY WON THEIR LEAGUES!!!
I'm not saying it is a perfect system but I like it a lot more than what we've seen lately or just picking the top 4 BCS teams. This makes every game of the season like a playoff and encourages people to watch everything and protects against the BCS defenders alleged biggest fear.
Having said all this, I know it isn't perfect and won't happen because it rewards those playing in an easier conference. The tougher conferences want a system that is likely to bring the most money to them which is a stumbling block for any of these systems. The one saving grace for all is that the best football programs have joined bigger conferences so this is less likely to happen in the future but it is the one reason I prefer an 8 team playoff. I will discuss that more in my next article.
For a long time the opponents have given a few excuses why a playoff is bad for college football. I've always felt it was a cop out but they were mainly centered on protecting the regular season. This season turned that idea on its head as Alabama played LSU in October to determine who would represent the SEC West in their championship game. LSU won that game but the way the polls worked by the end of the season LSU was #1 and Alabama was #2 so they were chosen to play again in the BCS game. To many fans this felt like a betrayal of what has always been the focus of the BCS because if a school plays another, loses then plays them again in the championship does the regular season really matter? It doesn't matter if the two teams were the best in the country (I happen to believe that they were), the key is they'd already played and to play again seemed wrong. Many fans seemed to agree and this year's BCS game got terrible ratings which was the final impetus for Delany's statement.
So how would a system work under the Delany plan? Most people feel that the best system is to take the top 4 BCS teams and match them up with the top 2 getting a home game. This would have created the following match up this year:
Stanford @ LSU
Oklahoma St @ Alabama
These games would have been very interesting to watch but the question is: does it honor the regular season? The answer is it really doesn't. I mentioned earlier that Alabama didn't win their conference but neither did Stanford. Stanford lost to Oregon head to head but Oregon lost to USC a two weeks later dropping them below Stanford in the polls. Just like LSU, because of their head to head win, Oregon went to the Pac 12 championship game and beat UCLA to win the league. Does including Stanford over Oregon make sense? Does it honor the regular season?
Some may say that the BCS computer rankings are good thing as it creates tension every week. I agree that it has its uses but evidence on a football field trumps any computer generated data. For that reason, Oregon has a much better claim to be included than Stanford as they won the head to head and won the league championship game. Something like this happens about every year which is why I would propose that the highest ranked conference champions be included in the 4 team playoff. For 2011, we would have seen these matchups:
Boise State @ LSU
Oregon @ Oklahoma State
I'm sure Stanford and Alabama fans would be livid under a scenario like this but my advice would be to win your league so there isn't an issue. One thing this would do is make winning your league the first step to becoming a national champion. This would make the refular season even more important than it is today and it would encourage fans from rival conferences to watch key matchups which would only help viewership.
There is a flaw in this plan and that is -- What happens if there is an upset in a conference championship game?
That's a good question and one without an easy answer. The best answer is to go to an 8 team playoff but that's unlikely to happen any time soon. So we need to have an idea of how our system would work if we have a lot of upsets like in 2007. For consistency's sake we will stick with the 2011 season but assume that the underdog won in the SEC (Georgia) and Pac 12 (UCLA) game. Under this scenario, I'm pretty confident that the top four in the BCS would have been the same although LSU probably would have been 4th and everyone else would have moved up. Would that be a fair championship? 3 of the 4 teams didn't win their conference but they'd be playing for a national title. Here's where the rankings would have been of the conference champions.
3 - Okla State
7 - Boise State
10 - Wisconsin
15 - Clemson
16 - Georgia (9)
18 - TCU
23 - West Virginia
NA - UCLA (20)
No doubt both UCLA and Georgia would have improved so I've given a tenative rank in parenthesis of how I think they would have finished if they won. That would have given us a game of of the following:
Wisconsin @ Oklahoma State
Georgia @ Boise State
If something like this happened, people in college football would be howling for change. Most of these teams weren't considered elite last season so how could they be considered for the national championship?
The answer is simple: THEY WON THEIR LEAGUES!!!
I'm not saying it is a perfect system but I like it a lot more than what we've seen lately or just picking the top 4 BCS teams. This makes every game of the season like a playoff and encourages people to watch everything and protects against the BCS defenders alleged biggest fear.
Having said all this, I know it isn't perfect and won't happen because it rewards those playing in an easier conference. The tougher conferences want a system that is likely to bring the most money to them which is a stumbling block for any of these systems. The one saving grace for all is that the best football programs have joined bigger conferences so this is less likely to happen in the future but it is the one reason I prefer an 8 team playoff. I will discuss that more in my next article.
The B1G Playoff Option - Part 1 - Driving Force
Jim Delany shocked the college football world this past week when he announced that he now supported a limited playoff. There are multiple reasons for this but the primary driver is that the bowl system is failing and television ratings are dropping. Money drives everything in college football and while many love the rewards of the bowl system, they are leaving too much money on the table by ignoring a true playoff system.
In the past few years, the smaller conferences have made quite a stink about being excluded from the BCS to the point that Congress has started to get involved. The thing is there are about a dozen schools that drive college football in terms of television ratings. There was a good article from the NY Times last fall that gives a decent idea of who drives television ratings. Suffice it to say that this includes most of the schools in the Big Ten/SEC and about 2-3 schools from the Big 12, ACC, and Pac 10. For a long time these schools have patiently sat by and allowed other conference schools benefit from their fans. A good example is in the Big Ten where Indiana hasn't had a good football team in a quarter century but the league shares revenue the same to them as they do to Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan. The relationship is symbiotic as these schools need 10 win season to keep their fanbase happy so sharing television and bowl revenue (about $25 million annually) is worth it. This doesn't totally make up the difference as college football is possibly the one remaining sport that is driven more by ticket sales that television. For example, Ohio State sells over 100,000 tickets to every home game at around $75 each. Add to that booster clubs and merchandising and you are easily looking at an additional $50 million in revenues which is why the Indiana's of the world cannot compete with the traditional powers.
This system has worked well for over a century but now the smaller conferences want a bigger piece of the pie. These schools (WAC/MountWest/MAC/C-USA/Sunbelt) are needed by the football powerhouses to farm wins just like the Big Ten needs Indiana. This is important because if the powerhouses only played one another then 10 win seasons would be a thing of the past for many which would frustrate boosters and eventually lessen income.
So the smaller schools have value but how much of the overall pie should they get?
For a long time these schools got their appearance fees and that was it. Appearance fees are an important part of any small schools athletic budget. For instance, Ohio State pays between $600,000 and $1,000,000 per game to visiting teams. No doubt the Buckeyes make many times that but when you consider that the total operating budget for some of these schools is $15 million you can see why small schools covet these games and most have 3-4 every year. In that way big school college football funds the athletic department not only of their school/conference but the athletic departments for every sport in Division 1.
A few years ago pressure from the small conferences pressed the bigger conferences to share the BCS revenues. This amounted to about $20 million for the 65 small schools or about $300,000 each. In a way it was a pay off to shut them up and I'm sure once the agreement was finalized the big schools thought they'd heard the last of the issue. After all they'd shared revenue and allowed these schools a shot at the bowls. What they didn't count on is the success that Utah, Boise State and TCU would over the next few years which would put additional pressure on them to include these schools in the national championship game and increase the demands for additional compensation. The one constant in college football is that any change is slow and these teams weren't willing to wait to get a bigger piece of the pie and now all three have moved to larger leagues. These schools were only 1 part of a conference realignment that was focused on maximizing revenue. How BCS monies were shared were the driving force behind most of the changes and the college presidents/athletic directors realized they had to do something to stablize college football.
The first idea that was floated in December was that starting with the next BCS agreement that there would no longer be automatic bids given to any school. Everything was reverting to the way it was before the BCS so the bowls could pick who they wanted to attend. In essence that means in 2015, an undefeated small school will lose out to a 9-3 big school every time which is how the big schools want it. They can hide behind the fact that the bowls are private entities and can invite anyone they want. The BCS would only match #1 vs #2 which again would most likely exclude small schools because under the current system, it is virtually impossible for a small school to finish that high.
That seemed to be the plan that would happen until Delany's announcement last week. Most other conferences have long wanted a "Plus 1" game so that the bowls would be a semi final followed by a championship game. Delany's proposal would add two games in December at the home field of the higher ranked team followed by a "college superbowl" at a neutral site. This has started a lot of conversation around college football as this system would exclude the bowls from the best 4 teams each season and turn tradition on its head.
The one thing is sure out of all this is the new BCS agreement will almost certainly include a playoff of at least 4 teams and that is a good thing. My next article will discuss the implications of Delany's proposal, the true impact on the various leagues, and most especially how it affects money.
In the past few years, the smaller conferences have made quite a stink about being excluded from the BCS to the point that Congress has started to get involved. The thing is there are about a dozen schools that drive college football in terms of television ratings. There was a good article from the NY Times last fall that gives a decent idea of who drives television ratings. Suffice it to say that this includes most of the schools in the Big Ten/SEC and about 2-3 schools from the Big 12, ACC, and Pac 10. For a long time these schools have patiently sat by and allowed other conference schools benefit from their fans. A good example is in the Big Ten where Indiana hasn't had a good football team in a quarter century but the league shares revenue the same to them as they do to Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan. The relationship is symbiotic as these schools need 10 win season to keep their fanbase happy so sharing television and bowl revenue (about $25 million annually) is worth it. This doesn't totally make up the difference as college football is possibly the one remaining sport that is driven more by ticket sales that television. For example, Ohio State sells over 100,000 tickets to every home game at around $75 each. Add to that booster clubs and merchandising and you are easily looking at an additional $50 million in revenues which is why the Indiana's of the world cannot compete with the traditional powers.
This system has worked well for over a century but now the smaller conferences want a bigger piece of the pie. These schools (WAC/MountWest/MAC/C-USA/Sunbelt) are needed by the football powerhouses to farm wins just like the Big Ten needs Indiana. This is important because if the powerhouses only played one another then 10 win seasons would be a thing of the past for many which would frustrate boosters and eventually lessen income.
So the smaller schools have value but how much of the overall pie should they get?
For a long time these schools got their appearance fees and that was it. Appearance fees are an important part of any small schools athletic budget. For instance, Ohio State pays between $600,000 and $1,000,000 per game to visiting teams. No doubt the Buckeyes make many times that but when you consider that the total operating budget for some of these schools is $15 million you can see why small schools covet these games and most have 3-4 every year. In that way big school college football funds the athletic department not only of their school/conference but the athletic departments for every sport in Division 1.
A few years ago pressure from the small conferences pressed the bigger conferences to share the BCS revenues. This amounted to about $20 million for the 65 small schools or about $300,000 each. In a way it was a pay off to shut them up and I'm sure once the agreement was finalized the big schools thought they'd heard the last of the issue. After all they'd shared revenue and allowed these schools a shot at the bowls. What they didn't count on is the success that Utah, Boise State and TCU would over the next few years which would put additional pressure on them to include these schools in the national championship game and increase the demands for additional compensation. The one constant in college football is that any change is slow and these teams weren't willing to wait to get a bigger piece of the pie and now all three have moved to larger leagues. These schools were only 1 part of a conference realignment that was focused on maximizing revenue. How BCS monies were shared were the driving force behind most of the changes and the college presidents/athletic directors realized they had to do something to stablize college football.
The first idea that was floated in December was that starting with the next BCS agreement that there would no longer be automatic bids given to any school. Everything was reverting to the way it was before the BCS so the bowls could pick who they wanted to attend. In essence that means in 2015, an undefeated small school will lose out to a 9-3 big school every time which is how the big schools want it. They can hide behind the fact that the bowls are private entities and can invite anyone they want. The BCS would only match #1 vs #2 which again would most likely exclude small schools because under the current system, it is virtually impossible for a small school to finish that high.
That seemed to be the plan that would happen until Delany's announcement last week. Most other conferences have long wanted a "Plus 1" game so that the bowls would be a semi final followed by a championship game. Delany's proposal would add two games in December at the home field of the higher ranked team followed by a "college superbowl" at a neutral site. This has started a lot of conversation around college football as this system would exclude the bowls from the best 4 teams each season and turn tradition on its head.
The one thing is sure out of all this is the new BCS agreement will almost certainly include a playoff of at least 4 teams and that is a good thing. My next article will discuss the implications of Delany's proposal, the true impact on the various leagues, and most especially how it affects money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)