Why not Utah?

My biggest beef with college football's postseason is not that the best team doesn't always win the championship. It often does, and no playoff system in any sport guarantees the top team will win it all. It's not that the postseason isn't exciting. Although there are some boring games, games like the Texas-USC Rose Bowl or the Boise - OU Fiesta Bowl were classics that stand up with any Superbowl or postseason game in any sport.
My biggest complaint has always been that in any given year at least half the teams in the highest division of college football have no mathematical chance of winning the championship. no other sport in the world eliminates more than half its teams before even one game is played. Why even bother having so many teams in that classification if their only purpose is to serve as a Washington Generals-type patsy for the big name schools.
For that reason, I feel that Utah deserves the national championship, no matter what happens with OU and Florida. If Utah can't win a national championship as the only undefeated team in the country when they beat the team that beat USC, beat a TCU team that was the only team to beat Boise State, and when they dominated an Alabama team that gave Florida all it could handle, than why bother having them (or any other non-BCS team) in FBS? No other team has done as much this season to earn the title.
The BCS is victory by definition. It's a national championship, but only for the "true" teams that meet our pre-defined definition of what a national championship team should be.

Journalism Ethics

I have a friend who works as a copy editor for the Detroit News. Given all the shakeup the last few weeks at the News and the industry as a whole, we've had a number of conversations about the future of the newspaper business, and how the papers can change to make themselves viable in the digital age.The conclusion that both of have come to is that the online versions of the newspapers need to be more like the most popular blogs, willing to link to stuff from other sites, and producing content and analysis several times a day.

But the holdup, from his perspective has been that the management at the paper is holding on to the ideal of a "Journalistic Integrity" that sets the newspaper industry above the blogs, recruiting websites, and other online media. In their minds, the popularity of the traditional media comes from the trust of the public knowing that news is gathered the "right way". For that reason, many in the mainstream media look down on the blogging community. They look at the new media as undercutting the traditional business model.

There is some truth to that view. Certainly the newspaper looses a lot of effectiveness when the "current" information it is telling us is out of date by the time it is printed because it has been posted hours earlier. And there are certainly many blogs out there (this one included) that offer opinions and "analysis" that does not come with the same amount of research and verified sources as a traditional newspaper column.

But what the newspaper management fails to see is that the pleas to journalism ethics or the credibility of the traditional media vis-a-vee the blogs goes out the window when you employ columnists whose sole reason for writing certain things is to sell papers.

Take the recent dustup with Detroit News columnist Rob Parker and Lions head coach Rod Marinelli. At the end of a string of questions where Parker was trying to get Marinelli to say anything that wasn't a cliche about the abysmal Lions defense and the DC, Jon Barry, who is Marinelli's son-in-law, Parker asked Marinelli if he wished his daughter had married a better defensive coordinator. Now at 0-15, Marinelli deserves all the criticism he gets. Barry, who was the only one interviewed two years ago, and has presided over two of the worst defenses in NFL history, deserves all the criticism he gets. And it is fair to question Marinelli about nepotism when the only appearant qualification of his DC is his relationship to the head coach. But clearly Parker's comment went over the line, and he should be reprimanded or suspended. Criticize the coach, leave the family out of it.

What I think this illustrates, and the reason I bring this issue up today, is the hypocrisy of the print media, the thing that my friend has been banging his head against. On one hand, the newspaper elite claim superiority over the non-traditional media because of journalistic ethics. Yet, on the other hand, they employ hacks like Parker, who don't have a problem violating those ethics, or at least skirting them, to sell more papers or create more traffic at the newspaper websites. We've seen it time and time again when it comes to the treatment of Rich Rodriguez and coverage of the team over the last year. We see it almost every major media market, where each paper has at least one sports columnist whose job it is to increase readership by writing stuff that is so outrageous that it pisses everyone off.

The bottom line, in my mind, is that the best sports blogs are successful because of their outstanding writing, excellent analysis, and humerous takes on the world of sports. Until the newspaper industry realizes that there is no tenure anymore, that the best player will play regardless of class, and that they will only be successful if they employ excellent writers and commentaters who can provide real analysis on a consistent basis irregardless of what their degree or background, they will continue on their path towards the scrapheap of history.

The Baseball HOF is a joke

The baseball hall of fame introduced its newest member, Rich "Goose" Gossage yesterday. I have no problem with Gossage in the Hall of Fame, I think his selection was long overdue. My problem is with the continued omission of Jack Morris and the complete lack of support for Alan Trammell.

Obviously I am a Tiger fan, so I am biased towards these two men. As a kid growing up during the prime of their careers, I count them among my favorite athletes of all time. But if you look at their careers objectively, I think you will see that they are both getting the short shrift.

When talking about the Hall of Fame, most people get into a debate about numbers. While statistics are one of the lynch pins of any good baseball argument, you have to be careful using them when talking about the Hall of Fame, because the same numbers from different eras mean different things. Lou Gehrig's 493 career home runs made him one of history's greatest sluggers. Fred McGriff's 493 home runs made him a sometime All Star who won't make it to Cooperstown without a ticket.

The criteria that should be used in Hall of Fame debates should be as follows: Was he one of the best players in baseball at his position during his career? Was he one of the best players on his team? This is why Rafael Palmeiro will never make the Hall of Fame, despite being 10th on the all-time home run list. Despite his consistency, you would have been hard pressed to call him the best, or even one of the best 1B in baseball at anytime in his career. He was never the top player on his team, often overshadowed by Pudge or by Juan Gonzalez. This is also why Jack Morris belongs in the Hall. He won more games than any pitcher in the 80s. He won 254 games in his career, the next pitcher in wins during that time period was Dennis Martinez with 218. He started three All Star games, and Game One of the world series for three different teams. He was the best starting pitcher of his era.

Likewise the same criteria suggests that Alan Trammell should be given more consideration than he is currently getting (18% of the vote). Along with Ripken and Smith, he was one the top SS of his era. His offensive numbers (.285, 1,231R, 185HR, 1,003 RBI & 236SB) compare favorably with Ozzie Smith's (.262, 1,257R, 28HR, 793 RBI & 580SB). Although Smith was clearly better defensively, Tram was no slouch, winning four golden gloves. Was Smith a better player than Trammell? I don't think so, but I could see how someone could see it differently. Was Smith so far superior to Tram that he deserved first ballot inclusion into the Hall while Tram languishes around 20% of the vote? Absolutely not.

If Morris and Trammell had played for the Yankees or the Red Sox, they'd have been elected to the Hall years ago. Instead they are forced to wait, knowing full well they were every bit the player as many of those already enshrined

Sound and Fury

With apologies to William Faulkner, thoughts about the this weekend's games.

-I found the Georgia reaction to their first touchdowns to be one of the most classless things I've seen this year. I generally think that people make too much of a big deal over post game celebrations. Who cares who planted what flag where? But to orchestrate an in-game celebration is ridiculous. I found it especially surprising given Mark Richt's reaction to his team's post-game celebrationagainst Vanderbilt. Considering how crazy people went over TO's Sharpee or the Joe Horn cell phone, I'm surprised more people haven't called out Richt for this. The Bulldogs are lucky they weren't playing in the Orange Bowl, or they might not have made it of the game alive.
-Speaking of the SEC East, this is starting to look like the year that the entire division goes 4-4. Tennessee is the only team that controls it's own destiny, but would anyone be surprised if they lost 2 out of their final three to Arkansas, Vandy, and Kentucky. I'm not sure I'd pick the Vols to beat any of the other SEC East teams on a neutral field, with the possible exception of Vandy.
-Not much to take from our game against perhaps the worst BCS conference team in the country with our backup QB and backup running backs, other than the fact that watching Mallet play a couple of games makes me appreciate Chad Henne even more.
-I get the feeling that with all the injuries, we really haven't seen a complete game from our offense. I hope we get one or two in the next three games.
-One of the downsides to the zone rushing attack is that we don't run as many screen plays as we used to. I think that a screen or swing pass to get Brown or Minor on the edge could be really effective.
-Ohio State looked scary good, especially on offense. Granted that Penn State isn't a top ten team, but they looked like they could name their score. The good news is that the OSU defense looked like it could be run on a little.
-All other considerations aside, I would love to see an Oregon - West Virginia championship game. That's the type of game that could be 55-50 at the half. If you thought the Boise / OU Fiesta bowl last year was fun, you ain't seen nothing yet.
-The reason why Hawaii shouldn't be in the BCS? They are 8-0 right now. Their 8 opponents to date have a grand total of 17 wins this year. This is after they beat 4-4 New Mexico State this week. Kansas and Ohio State, who have both been accused of having played no one this year have opponents with 30 and 37 wins respectively. Hawaii closes the year with 5-3 Fresno State, 4-4 Nevada, 2-6 Washington, and 7-1 Boise State, so the schedule gets a little tougher, but do they deserve a shot over an at-large BCS team?
-Bad news for Notre Dame haters, they streak over Navy just might continue. Sure this is an historically bad Irish team, but Navy just lost at home to Delaware 59-52. Of course, if a I-AA team scores 59 on Navy, Notre Dame should score a ton right? Now, if Notre Dame loses, not only do they lose to Navy for the first time since the Johnson administration, they lose their second game of the year to a team that lost at home to a I-AA (sorry FCS) team.
-New rankings are posted: South Florida stays near the top despite their second straight loss. USC drops off the table down to #73. Top riser and top faller among the top50 are both from the ACC, Clemson who beat Maryland on the road to jump to #27, and Virginia who lost to NC State and fell to #37. Big match up this week is #8 Arizona State at #6 Oregon.
-Would someone please tell the CUSA to stop with the Sunday night games. I've gotten used to the Thursday and Friday games, and have actually gotten to the point where I enjoy the chance to see the atmosphere at a place that normally doesn't get the limelight. But Sunday? The CFB weekend should end the moment the NFL starts.

The SEC and the BCS

Golden recently referenced an "excellent" article by Yahoo Sports' Dan Wetzel that talks about the Miles to Michigan rumors, and compares the SEC to the Big Ten, among others. The article is pretty much your run of the mill article this season: SEC rocks, Big Ten sucks, yada yada yada. While the general tenor of the article is antagonistic, it's hard to argue with most of the assertions in the article: Right now the SEC is a better conference than the Big Ten, it is easier to get through the Big Ten to a title game than the SEC, and LSU has a lot to offer a head coach that Big Ten schools don't.

But where the argument goes astray is when Wetzel argues that the BCS is somehow bad for the SEC. Nothing could be further from the truth. The BCS, and the bowl system it is helping to prop up, maintains the current balance of power in college football. The BCS conferences got 44 of the 64 bowl bids last season and a lion’s share of the prize money. It would have been more if not for a new NCAA rule, which forbid power conference 6-6 teams from getting at-large bids over 7-5 or 8-4 teams. For the first time last year both the MAC and Sun Belt got at-large bids to bowl games. With more money, and the extra practice time that is permitted with a bowl game, the power conferences have a stranglehold on success in college football. There are no Gonzagas or George Masons in football.

Furthermore, the current system helps the southern power structure of the game. The bowls create a large amount of revenue for southern and western cities. Most of the bowl games are played in the south; most of the bowl games are won by teams that are closer to the bowl. How successful would the ACC be in basketball if all NCAA tournament games were held in Chicago or Kansas City? The reason the BCS was created by an SEC commissioner and is still run by a former SEC commissioner is that the SEC has more to gain with the continuation of the current system that just about any other conference. 18 of the last 29 national champions came from the south. In contrast, in I-AA(sorry, FCS), the last 29 years of playoffs, where teams play on campus, have resulted in 15 southern championships, and 14 northern championships. A playoff system would level the playing field and would take away the built in advantage that SEC, ACC and to a lesser extent, PAC 10 teams currently hold.

A playoff system wouldn't help the SEC as much as it would help the WAC, the CUSA, or the Mountain West. Look at Boise State last year. Do we know for certain that they weren't the best team in the country last year? We have a pretty good idea based on watching teams play, but if there had been a playoff, would a Boise State run to a championship have been any more surprising than the first Gonzaga run to the Elite Eight a few years back? No, the SEC, like the Big Ten, and the other BCS conferences will protect the BCS at all costs. That's why Florida president Bernie Machen went into the SEC spring meeting touting a playoff and came out saying:

"They are persuaded, and I am now persuaded, that the best way to proceed is to work within the BCS structure and make some changes to make it better. That seems to me to be a very good way to go, and being that we are the leading football conference, we'll be able to be heard in that regard.''

The other presidents showed him the books and told him not to bite the BCS hand that feeds them. Wetzel, and Golden to a certain extent, both want you to believe that the SEC is a paragon of virtue, fighting for a playoff, while the big bad greedy Big Ten won't let it happen. The truth is, the SEC has its snout buried in the bowl system trough as much as anyone.

Interesting Recruiting item

On the eve of the college football season, we have a new set of rankings from Rivals, ranking the 2007 recruiting classes based on who actually enrolled. Especially noteworthy is the list of players who didn't even make it to the start of classes. Several teams have remarkable lists of players who signed letters of intent, but didn't actually enroll in classes: Virginia Tech lost six players, Baylor, Mississippi State and South Carolina lost 7 each, Auburn lost 10 players, and Oregon State didn't enroll an amazing 16 players out of the 34 players that signed letters of intent.
(climbs on soapbox)
Now I understand that there are any number of legitimate reasons why a 18-year old kid would change their mind between February of their senior year and the time it comes to go to college. But half of your recruiting class?!? That's not an accident, and it's not random, it's by design. Schools are purposely recruiting more players than they have space for, knowing that they can kick them to the curb when they get to the fall. It's no accident that many of these players are the lower rated recruits. These schools are selling these kids a bill of goods, convincing them that they can compete, or that they belong at a BCS school. When they sign a letter of intent, it prevents them from enrolling at another school, where they might have a more realistic chance of success for at least a year.
So how do you fix this? Simple, make the LOI two-way (HT:Mgoblog) When a school accepts a player's Letter of Intent, tie the scholarship they are offering to that player for at least two years. That is, if Billy Bob Three-Star signs a letter of intent to play for Enormous State University, the Sandcrabs can't offer that scholarship to anyone else unless Billy Bob transfers to another school or suffers a career-ending injury. Do this, and schools will stop signing so many players. This will also help lower end D-I schools. How many of those players who signed with Mississippi State or Auburn might have considered Southern Miss or UAB if they hadn't been drawn in by the big name school?
(climbs off soapbox)

Plus One analysis

Golden Football Rankings has done an extensive analysis of how the last ten years might have shaken out in college football if we had either a Plus-One format or a Final Four without the bowls. He also offers his conclusion that either plan should not be limited to conference champions, and should take the top teams according to the rankings. He also concludes that any plan adopted should be flexible enough to allow movement of teams to avoid regular season rematches.

Setting aside the notion that neither of these plans have a snowball's chance in Columbus of being implemented, these sort of formats are fun to think about. Some additional things to consider:

1) In its ideal world, the rose bowls wants a Pac Ten / Big Ten match up every year. Even if its a Purdue / Washington State match up, that's preferable to bringing in other BCS conferences.

2) While a final four playoff would be better than the current system, matching up the #1 and #2 teams before a championship game would be unfair to those teams. Why should Texas play another game in '05 after beating USC in one of the greatest games of all time?

3)The final four or plus-one formats do not include enough teams, and do not address the biggest issues surrounding college football's current system. Nor do they effectively reinstate the tradition that surrounded the bowls in the pre-ESPN era.

(climbs on soapbox)
To me the biggest issue with our current system is that not every team in I-A (or FBS) football has the same shot at winning a national title. Major college football is the only sport where at least half the teams start the season with no mathematical chance of winning a national title. Eastern Michigan (for example) has no realistic chance to win the NCAA basketball tournament next year, but their coach can tell his players (as can every coach outside of college football) at the start of the year that if they win every game, they'll be champions. In college football, teams like Eastern have no such chance. The could go 4 years without losing a game, and still not win a mythical national championship.
For this reason, college football has a class system that is more rigid than any other sport. MAC teams will never be able to beat Big Ten teams for bowl games, recruits, or television revenue.
In an interesting paradox, this class system is both what fans enjoy about college football, but also prevents it from being even more enticing to more fans. Fans enjoy knowing that the same teams will be good year to year, but also abhor the scheduling of tomato can opponents that comes from this system.

IMO, the ideal playoff system would help to level the playing field by giving all teams in I-A a chance to participate. The two systems that would do this are as follows:
1) 8 team playoff, conference champions only (with some sort of clause allowing an independent to play if they are above a certain level)
2) 16 team playoff, all 11 conference champs, and 5 at-large teams.

In both scenarios, you play first round games on campus, and the rest at bowls. The rest of the games at bowl sites. The fact that you are guaranteed a spot as a conference champ would allow BCS teams to be more adventurous with their non-conference scheduling. It would also allow the Boise States or Utahs of the world a real shot at the national title. The limited amount of at-large bids would not cheapen the regular season, but would allow for seasons where two top teams are from the same conference.

(climbs off soapbox)
Of course none of this will ever happen, too much money involved in the current system to ever change.