Lions strive to be in league of their own

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

For decades, Penn State didn’t have this problem. The Nittany Lions could never be deemed guilty by association.

	Joe Sargent/Getty Images
	Penn State’s Aaron Maybin and the rest of the Nittany Lions are playing for themselves, not the Big Ten, in the upcoming Rose Bowl.

As a Division I-A independent until 1993, Penn State was judged solely on its own merits, not according to the strength of its conference or its league’s recent bowl performances. The Lions played for themselves, for their head coach, Joe Paterno, and for a storied program that held unique national appeal.

That’s it.

The Lions carry a heavier burden into the Rose Bowl Game (presented by Citi), a load they arguably don’t deserve to bear. Despite a phenomenal regular season and standout players on both sides of the ball, Penn State has been chained to the Big Ten Conference, which right now serves as more of an anchor than a buoy.

The Big Ten has lost its last four BCS bowl games and its last five Rose Bowl appearances. And no team has contributed more to the Big Ten’s recent struggles than USC, which faces Penn State on Jan. 1 (ABC, 5 p.m. ET).

According to such on-the-surface logic, Penn State has no shot against the Trojans and enters the game as a heavy underdog. But the Lions are determined to distinguish themselves and show they shouldn’t be linked to the Big Ten’s recent failures.

 ”We never looked at the past like, ‘OK, the Big Ten hasn’t won this, so that means we’re not going to win,’” Lions senior wide receiver Derrick Williams said. “This is a new year, this is a new season, this is a new team. This Penn State team never played USC and USC has never played us, either.”

In a way, Penn State wants to return to its independent roots.

“We refuse to allow ourselves to be lumped in a category with any other team,” star defensive end Aaron Maybin said. “We try to do everything to set ourselves apart as a different team that plays a different brand of football. We’re just going to keep on doing that and take that into the Rose Bowl.”

Read more

Jim Delany talks Big Ten bowls, Part I

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

Jim Delany has seen the point spreads, and he knows the odds are against his league this postseason. The Big Ten commissioner also doesn’t downplay the significance of the seven bowls that will feature Big Ten teams (Iowa is the only Big Ten squad favored to win). 

After going 0-4 in BCS games the last two seasons, the Big Ten has taken its lumps nationally. Ohio State’s selection to the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl elicited grumbling from those who were thoroughly unentertained by the Buckeyes in the last two BCS title games. But as Delany knows, public perception can change quickly, and Big Ten victories in the Rose and Fiesta bowls could put the league back among the nation’s best.

I caught up with Delany this afternoon as he was driving from New York to New Jersey to visit family. Here’s the first of my two-part interview with the Big Ten commissioner.

What was your initial reaction when the Big Ten bowl pairings were announced?

Jim Delany: We’re fortunate that everybody that’s bowl eligible has a good game, a challenging game. The matchups are great. I noticed we’re not favored to win many, but that’s sort of the nature of what we do. You’ve got to play the best, whether it’s Southern Cal or the SEC or the best in the BCS. So it will be a challenging schedule but one that we could have some success. But it’s big stage, big risk, big reward. If we do well, we’ll get due credit. If not, we’ll probably take some criticism because we’ve had a couple years where we haven’t performed well on the big stage. If we do do well, that will go a long way. A few years, we were 8-5 in the BCS and we were leading the way. And after going 0-4, we’re in a different situation. The only thing that’s going to cure that is winning games.

You mention high risk, high reward. Is this a critical bowl season for the Big Ten?

JD: I think it is, more than normal. If you’re on a four-game winning streak, nobody really mentions much. And when you’re not, it’s mentioned often.

For a team like Ohio State, do you see this as a big opportunity for the Buckeyes after being criticized heavily the last couple years?

JD: They’re kind of in line with the conference because they won a national championship in 2002, they won two Fiesta Bowls, they handily took care of Kansas State and Notre Dame. They were swimming along like we were as a conference, which was more than holding our own at the top of the heap from 2000-05. The last two years have been tough for us. It’s not we haven’t won games. We have won big games. But at the highest level, we haven’t been as competitive as the coaches want, the players want and the fans want. So whenever you’re not competing at the level you want to, all you can do is go compete harder [laughs]. There’s nothing else you can do. You don’t stop competing.

As someone who covered the league, I felt that this fall, Penn State in some ways paid the price for the league’s BCS failures the last couple years in terms of getting national respect, BCS rankings, et cetera. How did you view that situation?

JD: I don’t know, I’m sure there’s some spillover, but it would have been interesting to see how it would have played out [had Penn State gone undefeated]. They were clearly third [in the BCS standings]. I would say that because we haven’t won big the last two years, there are certain impacts on other teams. If you look at Penn State, they’ve won three bowl games in a row. They defeated Oregon State handily. They had a good, competitive game with Ohio State. You’d have to ask the people who are voting whether or not there’s spillover. Maybe they just thought they were the eighth-best team in the country. 

Does the league’s bowl performance shape the next season going into it, as far as hype? 

JD: It does because voters, especially in the Coaches’ Poll — not so much in the Harris Poll because it comes out [five] weeks into the season — there’s no doubt that the teams that win national championships, if you looked at Michigan in ‘97 or Ohio State, any of those polls, when you have a poll that occurs before you play a game, what else do you have but past performance? So we’ve got four, five games at the top of our ledger. The coaches get it, fans get it, players get it. The only people who walk away feeling good are the guys who win. The other guys just go back and work harder and compete harder.

A lot of people saw this as a transition year for Michigan, but from a league perspective, how important is it for Michigan to be good, just for the way the league is looked at nationally?

JD: They’ve been to 33 straight bowl games. They’ve won x number of football games, a very winning program. So there is a level of measurement [for the league], but when I look around the country during that timeframe, I’ve seen USC way down. It doesn’t mean the Pac-10 couldn’t execute. I’ve seen Oklahoma way down, Texas way down, Notre Dame way down, Alabama way down, Florida way down. So if you’re a reasonable person looking at the Big Ten or any of those conference and you see a program like Michigan that has never been down — they’ve had one season since they lost to BYU in ‘84 where they won fewer than eight games — I think they’ll bounce back. It’s a great program, great tradition, great history. They lost four or five players to the NFL off the offensive side, changed systems. They had transfers. I expect [improvement] if not next year, the following year. I don’t expect Michigan to be without players, and I know that [Rich] Rodriguez is a very good football coach. He’s proven that over a decade. I don’t expect [the struggles] to be long lived.

Go to Source

Lawmaker proposing bill to end BCS system

WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking aim at a BCS system he said “consistently misfires,” a member of Congress planned to introduce legislation Wednesday that would force college football to adopt a playoff to determine the national champion.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn’t specify what sort of playoff he wants — only that the BCS should go.

“In some years the sport’s national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title,” Barton said in a statement released ahead of the bill’s introduction. “Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on.”

He said the bill — being co-sponsored by Reps. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat, and Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican — “will prohibit the marketing, promotion, and advertising of a postseason game as a ’national championship’ football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system. Violations of the prohibition will be treated as violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act as an unfair or deceptive act or practice.

The BCS was created in 1998 by the six most powerful conferences. Since then, the system has been tweaked to make it easier for teams from smaller conferences to qualify for the top games. The sites for the four BCS bowls — the Rose, Orange, Sugar and Fiesta — take turns hosting a championship game between the top two teams in the BCS standings, which are based on two human polls and six computer ratings.

This season, Florida (12-1) and Oklahoma (12-1) will meet in the BCS title game Jan. 8 in Miami.

Barton cited Southern California in 2003 and undefeated Auburn in 2004 as examples of worthy teams left out of the BCS national championship game.

“This year, we again have two teams with one loss each playing for the ’championship,’ while two undefeated teams and four additional teams with only one loss will play in bowl games, but none can become ’champion,”’ he said.

When an Energy and Commerce subcommittee held a hearing about the BCS in 2005, lawmakers said they weren’t going to pursue legislation.

“The BCS method of determining who is No. 1 consistently misfires,” Barton said Wednesday. “Simply exposing the flaws and subjecting them to discussion … hasn’t led to improvement by those who run the system.”

Go to Source

USC’s interest level could give Penn State an edge

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

USC coach Pete Carroll spent part of last night’s Rose Bowl conference call defending his team’s desire to play yet another game in Pasadena. 

Carroll said all the right things, reaffirmed his love for the Rose Bowl, how it’s always USC’s top goal, yada, yada, yada. The coach said claims that USC isn’t amped to face another supposedly overmatched Big Ten team stemmed solely from the media. 

“Watch the interviews from our players and coaches,” Carroll said. “We’re pumped about this opportunity, excited, feel honored that we have this matchup. Everything else you hear to the contrary is written by people from the media side of it. That’s not our guys talking. It’s never what we’ve been about. 

“Every single day we walk off the practice field, we see the Rose Bowl at the end of the tunnel, everybody knows that’s what we’re shooting for. There’s no doubt about it. We’re all pumped up about this.”

There’s no doubt Carroll is pumped. He’d be geeked to play in the International Bowl and request the game be moved outside. That’s one of the reasons he’s so easy to like. 

But it’s hard to believe his players are itching to face another Big Ten team in the Rose Bowl after dominating Illinois and Michigan the last two seasons.  

Here’s how Trojans defensive tackle Kyle Moore characterized the BCS after his team finished off UCLA on Saturday.

“They did us wrong,” he said. “They did us dirty. We were No. 5 [in the BCS poll], we win 56-0 [against Washington], then they moved us down to No. 7. We’ve been trying to move back to that spot since then. I don’t know how this BCS works.” 

Enter teammate Patrick Turner. 

“We’ve been going to Rose Bowls for a while now,” Turner said. “It’s like a home game.”

The Trojans don’t seem too excited, and their interest in the game — or lack thereof — could benefit Penn State come Jan. 1. 

Penn State has enough talent to pace the Trojans, but given USC’s amazing track record in bowl games under Carroll, any intangible edge the Lions can get will be beneficial. 

Carroll is a master motivator, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if USC gets to the right mental state before kickoff. But Penn State has been disrespected more than USC this season, and there’s no doubt Joe Paterno’s players will be ready for the Rose Bowl.

The Lions were totally dismissed from the national title picture after a 1-point road loss to a pretty good Iowa team. They inexplicably fell to No. 8 in the BCS standings — behind inferior squads in Utah and Texas Tech — and drew criticism for their conference affiliation more than anything they did on the field. 

Penn State has an excellent opportunity to show it’s not another Big Ten flop, that it can compete with the nation’s best.

The Lions have plenty of reasons to get excited for the Rose Bowl. 

Does USC?

Go to Source

BCS Vs. Playoffs (Plus a Proposal to End All Proposals, Maybe)

Note: This article will be submitted as a final project for a research paper in a class of mine, so it isn’t in typical B/R style. I debated on whether to rewrite it in a more familiar form for you readers, but decided to leave it as is. Thus, it has citations and a works cited. Also, it will be a little long, but I believe you will enjoy it. I look forward to hearing all of your feedback. 

 

 

BCS vs. Playoffs

            The subject of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has been a hot topic among sports fans. Some are in favor of it, like BCS creator Roy Kramer (Carey) while others want a playoff system, like The Sporting News Columnist Steve Greenberg and ESPN columnist Bruce Feldman (Staff). However, one side definitely has the edge. If a person would want to see why a playoff is better for college football, look no farther than Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno. During the 1968 and 1969 seasons his Nittany Lions went undefeated both years, but not only did he not win a national championship either of those years, he and his teams were not even given the chance to play for a national championship because the NCAA was not under a playoff system. Paterno is now an 81 year old man, having coached four undefeated teams without one single national championship on his resume (Wetzel, Wetzel’s playoff plan: I’ll drink to that). The NCAA needs to establish at least a 4 team playoff to start off and eventually arrive at a 16 team playoff because the current system, the BCS, does not fairly give deserving teams a chance at a national title. 

            The BCS is a system put in place in Division 1 college football that creates postseason matchups based on certain criteria, with one game designated as the national championship game. There are five total games in the BCS, with the final game played being the national championship game. They are the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and the Sugar Bowl.  Those bowls and their respective site host the national championship game on a rotating basis, meaning one of those sites gets two BCS bowls each year. The champions of the six major conferences (Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, ACC, Big East) get automatic bids to a certain BCS game, with each conference having a tie-in to a certain bowl site. The remaining four spots go to at-large candidates that have to meet special criteria set by the NCAA conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletic director. Notre Dame is a special case with the BCS because they do not belong to a conference, so they must have special rules applying to them to gain eligibility for the BCS. Those at large bids are not just limited to the six major conferences, smaller conference teams can go to a BCS game if they achieve a certain ranking in the BCS standings (The BCS is …).

The BCS was preceded by the Bowl Coalition, from 1992-1994, the Bowl Alliance, from 1995-1997, until the BCS started in 1998. Those previous systems introduced an actual national championship game, whereas in previous decades the national champion was mythical, meaning the team did not actually play a national championship game, they were just chosen as the national champion by polls. The previous Bowl systems prior to the BCS were created to alleviate growing pressure to have a national championship game (Fréchette, Roth and Unver).

            The BCS standings are a poll released after a week during the middle of the college football season, then every week after that until the final poll. The BCS formula uses extensive statistics, like win-loss record, margin of victory, home and away games, and many others, as well as factoring in the human polls, one being the coaches’ poll, and the Harris Interactive Poll, which is the poll that college football writers and other experts across the sport get a vote in. These three parts, the computer rankings, coaches’ poll, and Harris poll, get 1/3 of the overall importance to the BCS standings. The top two teams in the final poll go to the BCS National Championship game (BCS Selection Procedures).

The pros and cons of each system are numerous. BCS proponents say that their system creates a playoff during the regular season because every game counts, just like a playoff, while their system also uses the bowl games, which have a storied history behind them. Playoff supporters say that head to head competition is the best way to decide the best team. Also, they point to how well a playoff works in Div. I-AA, II and III (Alder).

            Arguments against the BCS include that a national champion has a very real possibility of being named by personal opinion and biases and that the BCS also allows for a team to have one bad game during the regular season and thus cost them any chance at the national championship later, in a society where we are entrenched with the idea of giving second chances. The playoff detractors point to the diminishing importance of the regular season and the extension of an already long season. They also say that academics would be harmed (Alder).

This topic is important for many reasons. One main reason is the time put into college football by its fans. In the grand scheme of things, football is not important. However, for many, football is one of their major hobbies outside of the minutiae of life. People put hope into football teams. When people place such importance into these games, college football has a responsibility to establish a good product. Another big reason is the money involved with the college football postseason. Each team, or school, in the Rose, Orange, and Fiesta Bowls will get roughly 17.5 million dollars for the upcoming January Bowls while each conference represented in the Sugar Bowl will get 17.5 million dollars. Each national championship school, win or lose, gets 17.5 million dollars as well (BCS Bowl Facts). This brings us to a major reason why the BCS system is supported by a few, but powerful, people.

            The main supporters for the system are the major conference commissioners and athletic directors because they are benefiting from those huge sums of money. These detractors of a playoff point to the tremendous amounts of revenue football teams take in. For instance, in 2005, Alabama’s basketball program took in 1.8 million dollars in broadcast rights from the postseason while the football program took in 5.4 million dollars from their postseason (Walsh). In April of 2008 BCS conference commissioners met and discussed the current system and possible tweaks they wanted to make, as well as looking at a possible playoff system championed by many around the sport. Coming out of that meeting, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said that his league’s boards of directors were strongly against any type of playoff system. SEC commissioner Mike Slive proposed a plus one model –a system between the BCS and a playoff- and according to sources at the meeting, no commissioner met his ideas with any kind of enthusiasm (Schlabach). The BCS rules state that these men have the power to deal with the college football postseason (BCS Selection Procedures). These men have the power to change things.

As noted before, a major reason many are against a playoff is the money involved. Another main one is that people like the BCS and believe its working. Former Notre Dame athletic director Kevin White said, after the commissioner meeting mentioned before, that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Schlabach). Still, that does not justify looking at other alternatives. If you can make something better, why would you not try?

Let’s look at a case where a playoff would have been nice to have in place. In 2004, three major conference teams were undefeated after the regular season ended. They were Southern California, Oklahoma, and Auburn. All three won their conferences. As you can see, a controversy was bound to come into play. Eventually, Oklahoma and Southern Cal were chosen to play because they had started the season off with high expectations, and in turn a high preseason poll ranking, while Auburn was not expected to be as good as they were. Thus, they could not move past either team in the BCS rankings, no matter how well they played. So it broke down to this: the expectations people had of them four months ago, when they had not yet played a single game, doomed them. They eventually went to the Sugar Bowl and won, while Southern Cal beat Oklahoma in the title game, 55-19 (Walsh). What does it say when a team cannot do anything at all themselves to create a real chance at a national title? This shows the only fair way to crown a team as the champion is to prove it on the field, not through computer statistics and early season predictions.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports released an article where he unveiled “The Wetzel Plan” that would be a great college football playoff system. He calls for a 16 team playoff because if a college football playoff mirrors the way college basketball does their tournament, which is highly successful, it would create the best experience. To do this, all 11 conference champions would be included. This involvement of all of the champions would help to lessen one of the issues people have with a proposed playoff system, that is, that the regular season would be diminished. BCS proponents believe that the way the system is now, the regular system is hugely important, which is true. They then say that when you add a playoff, you will give teams the option of taking games off at the end of the season when they have a playoff position clinched and then they can rest their players. However, if you include all the champions, it gives top teams an incentive to win their games because if they can achieve a better overall seed, they can start off by playing a weaker team. Putting all the conference champions in also gives them a chance to prove themselves on a national stage, which they otherwise would not get. Another thing this would bring, he adds, is true Cinderella teams, like in the basketball tournament. When those teams win, everyone watches and pays attention. People like seeing underdog teams have success, and the ratings and revenue this could bring would be gigantic.

A logical idea would be to start off with a four team or eight team playoff because it would be a step in the right direction of a 16 team playoff. The step from the BCS to a 16 team playoff is such a large one that would need to include much change to make happen. For instance, proposing a four team or eight team playoff to the conference commissioners would most likely be met with greater acceptance because this smaller playoff system is much closer to what the BCS is. Proposing a smaller system to start off also would allow for unforeseen issues that could cause unnecessary damage to be avoided, so having a middle step or two would be acceptable and smart in the long run. This idea would also allow for the people involved to figure out the scheduling for a playoff much easier, as you would need less time to start off.

The problem that people will have with this playoff proposal is that it will cause huge issues with final exams in December. If you break the bracket down, you would need four weeks (16 to 8, 8 to 4, 4 to 2, 2 to 1) to have this playoff. Right now, there is about a month break between the last regular season or conference championship games and early January BCS games (Saturday, Dec. 6 was conference championship day; the first BCS game is Jan. 1). There are some issues with cramming the playoffs in here, but it can be done. You could eliminate the conference championship games, and set each team’s schedule at 12 games, or even start the season earlier. Under the current system, some teams without a conference championship game ended their season a few weeks ago, meaning they might have as many as 50 days between games. That is more of an issue than trying to fit in finals. How in sync is a team when they have not played a game for weeks? College basketball makes finals work late in December, and they play multiple games a week. Football teams play one game a week. Athletics and academics have worked together for years. How can they not find a solution now?

There is a common ground for BCS proponents and playoff proponents in that both are trying to establish a credible postseason system that appeals to the masses, and also to serve the student athletes. The difference lies in the two sides’ execution of these ideals. The BCS side has taken these goals and decided their system is best because it allows for exciting, ratings filled games while allowing student athletes to have ample time for academics. The many playoff proposals have factored these situations into their plans as well. It’s hard to imagine a football playoff not being a ratings success when we have seen how well the basketball games do in attendance and on television while the numerous other colleges around America that have football teams in playoffs make school work as well. That’s where the administrators need to begin. They should look at where a playoff has worked and what a successful playoff has done to accommodate the potential issues associated.

Right now, college football is not in crisis. The BCS games will get huge ratings, and most people will be satisfied with what they watch early in January. There is evidence out there, however, that says the experience could be much better. The NCAA needs to establish at least a 4 team playoff to start off and eventually arrive at a 16 team playoff because the current system, the BCS, does not fairly give deserving teams a chance at a national title. 

Works Cited

Alder, James. “BCS vs. Playoff System.” About. 13 November 2008 <http://football.about.com/od/bowlchampionship/i/bcsvsplayoffs.htm>.

 

“BCS Bowl Facts.” Fox Sports on MSN. 3 December 2008 <http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/facts>.

 

“BCS Selection Procedures.” Fox Sports on MSN. 29 October 2008 <http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility>.

 

Carey, Jack. “Man behind creation of BCS pleased with results.” 8 December 2007. USA Today. 29 October 2008 <http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bowls/2007-12-06-bcs2-football_N.htm?csp=34>.

 

Drehs, Wayne. “BCS figures new formula makes for a better title game.” 12 July 2001. ESPN. 29 October 2008 <http://espn.go.com/ncf/s/2001/0712/1225482.html>.

 

Fréchette, Guillaume R., Alvin E. Roth and M. Utku Unver. “Unraveling Yields Inefficient Matchings: Evidence from Post-Season College Football Bowls.” Rand Journal of Economics (2004): 1-29.

 

Guidry, Phil. “Mythbusters: Minus the “playing”.” 6 November 2008. Sports Illustrated. 10 November 2008 <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/sioncampus/11/06/mythbusters/?eref=T1>.

Schlabach, Mark. “Current BCS system a hit with most conference commissioners.” 30 April 2008. ESPN. 3 December 2008 <http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=schlabach_mark&id=3375723>.

 

Staff. “Experts Discussion … BCS vs. a Playoff.” 10 July 2008. College Football News. 13 November 2008 <http://www.cfn.scout.com/2/768444.html>.

 

“The BCS is …” Fox Sports on MSN. 1 December 2008 <http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/definition>.

 

Walsh, Christopher J. Who’s #1?: 100 Years of Controversial National Champions in College Football. New York: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2007.

 

Wetzel, Dan. “Big Lie: Big Ten.” 27 November 2008. Rivals.com from Y! Sports. 6 December 2008 <http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-playoff112707&prov=yhoo&type=lgns>.

 

—. “Wetzel’s playoff plan: I’ll drink to that.” 28 October 2008. Rivals.com on Y! Sports. 28 October 2008 <http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-bcs102808&prov=yhoo&type=lgns>.

 

Go to Source

FBS Playoff Series: Four Teams

The Optimum Plus-One

Of the talk of implementing a playoff for college football it is the four team playoff that would require the least amount of change to the current system. This is not a 24-team playoff that would wreck the bowl system or require a loss of regular season games. This is simply one extra game.

The semantic difference between a plus-one playoff and a four team playoff is that a plus-one takes the best two teams after the bowl games and that a four team playoff matches the top 4 teams prior to the bowls. In this iteration of the FBS Playoff Series, I will examine the three steps toward creating the optimum plus-one format.

 

1. Using The Bowls As Semifinals

Currently the BCS matches the top two teams in the BCS Championship. Obviously a plus-one under this format would match an almost undisputed champion with a potential also ran. Last year it would have matched LSU against one of the four (near equal) winners of the other BCS games (USC, Kansas, Georgia, or West Virginia).

A plus-one using traditional bowl matchups would also lack having the definite top teams matched up. Last year the matchups might have looked like this (a good slate, I believe):

No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 7 USC in the Rose Bowl
No. 2 LSU vs. No. 6 Missouri in the Sugar Bowl (third at large)
No. 3 Virginia Tech vs. No. 5 Georgia in the Orange Bowl (first at large)
No. 4 Oklahoma vs. No. 9 West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl (second at large)

The top three games have very equitable matchups. One of the winners, however, would be left out. This means that in order for a plus-one model to be an improvement over the current model the top four teams must be determined specifically instead of allowing them to go to different bowl games.

Two of the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar will host the semifinals. The bowls which host shall be determined by conferences’ bowl tie-ins. The remaining bowls will remain a part of the BCS along with a fifth BCS bowl (Cotton, Gator, Outback, Peach, or Sun) to keep the number of BCS teams at 10 and the automatic berth to non-BCS Champions (ie Utah or Boise State)

 

2. Keeping A Traditional Rose Bowl

Everyone who has done their research about potential playoffs knows that the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl are all standing in the way. These entities wish to keep their Rose Bowl tradition intact and in doing so have prevented a playoff from materializing.

The solution is to keep the Rose Bowl tradition intact. The heuristics around this are that if champions (co-champions included) of these two conferences are both in the Top 5 then the two are pitted in the Rose Bowl AS a Semifinal. If only one team is in the Top 5 then a replacement is found (just as happens now) and the Rose Bowl is played as another BCS game.

This past year the Rose Bowl would have lost top ranked Ohio State to the playoff and Illinois would have been selected as a replacement, just as what actually happened. Applying this to the past 10 BCS years only three times would the Rose Bowl would miss out on a conference champion (2001 Oregon, 2004 USC, and 2007 Ohio State).

In contrast, the Rose Bowl already missed out on the following five teams because they ascended to the National Championship (2002 Ohio State, 2004 USC, 2005 USC, 2006 Ohio State, 2007 Ohio State). This discounts occasions under the old BCS format when the Rose Bowl hosted the National Championship in which case the the total would rise from five to seven.

Therefore, this ensures greater tradition in the Rose Bowl game. I would think that these conferences should be lining up to accept this proposal. This format would reduce occasions when the Rose Bowl selects a non-champion in half!

 

3. Keeping At-Large Teams in the Playoff And BCS

The selection procedure for the four playoff teams would occur as follows. First, if the Pac-10 and Big Ten place two champions (or co-champions) in the Top 5 then those two teams are matched in the Rose Bowl as a semifinal.

Second, the top two teams are guaranteed two spots. Third, if any spots remain then the top conference champion(s) in the Top 5 obtain those spots. Finally, if a spot still remains then the top at-large team is included.

The pairing of teams is done by allowing the top two (or one, if the Rose Bowl is a semifinal) of the ACC, Big 12, and SEC champions (if in the playoff) to host their respective bowls (Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). The remaining two playoff teams are paired to avoid rematches or to have the highest ranked host against the lowest ranked team remaining.

The BCS maintains the same team selection procedures for the remaining three games as before. Teams like Boise State, Utah, and Hawaii still have the same opportunities to play in the BCS, as will all other teams in the top 14 of the Final BCS Standings.

The full slate of games for this past year would have looked like this:

No. 7 USC vs. No. 13 Illinois in the Rose Bowl
No. 5 Georgia vs. No. 10 Hawaii in the Cotton Bowl
No. 2 LSU vs. No. 4 Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl
No. 8 Kansas vs. No. 9 West Virginia in the in the Fiesta Bowl
No. 3 Virginia Tech vs. No. 1 Ohio State in the Orange Bowl

Conclusion

Should the BCS, college football, and those parties concerned about the Rose Bowl finally come around to a playoff, expect this to be the format used. It is a plus to the fans thirsty for a playoff. It is a plus to those schools (Miami and Washington 2000, Oregon 2001, USC 2003, Auburn 2004) which deserved a shot at the title. It is a plus to the Rose Bowl parties, concerned about tradition. It is a plus to the Networks who can generate more money per BCS game.

Perhaps it is irony but this model which was constructed two years may find its worst fit this year. The most likely outcome for the playoff will be the SEC Champion and Texas playing in the Sugar Bowl while Oklahoma and USC play in the Fiesta Bowl. This looks to be a strong playoff construct.

However, this will most likely be the second time (2001 being the first) when the Rose Bowl gets it worse than under the current system. Currently USC and Penn State are tentatively scheduled for the Rose Bowl. However, USC is ascending into the playoff while neither Oregon nor Oregon State are in the BCS top 14.

This means that for the first time under this model the Rose Bowl would have to select outside its traditional conferences; that is, unless the BCS implements an allowance for the Rose Bowl to select outside the top 14 for an at large replacement.

At any rate this model would produce strong playoff matchups to determine a National Champion on the field.

Go to Source

FBS Playoff Series: A Four-Team Format

The Optimum Plus-One

Of the talk of implementing a playoff for college football it is the four team playoff that would require the least amount of change to the current system. This is not a 24-team playoff that would wreck the bowl system or require a loss of regular season games. This is simply one extra game.

The semantic difference between a plus-one playoff and a four team playoff is that a plus-one takes the best two teams after the bowl games and that a four team playoff matches the top four teams prior to the bowls.

In this iteration of the FBS Playoff Series, I will examine the three steps toward creating the optimum plus-one format…

1) Using the Bowls as Semifinals

Currently the BCS matches the top two teams in the BCS Championship. Obviously a plus-one under this format would match an almost undisputed champion with a potential also ran. Last year it would have matched LSU against one of the four (near equal) winners of the other BCS games (USC, Kansas, Georgia, or West Virginia).

A plus-one using traditional bowl matchups would also lack having the definite top teams matched up. Last year the matchups might have looked like this (a good slate, I believe):

No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 7 USC in the Rose Bowl
No. 2 LSU vs. No. 6 Missouri in the Sugar Bowl (third at large)
No. 3 Virginia Tech vs. No. 5 Georgia in the Orange Bowl (first at large)
No. 4 Oklahoma vs. No. 9 West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl (second at large)

The top three games have very equitable matchups. One of the winners, however, would be left out. This means that in order for a plus-one model to be an improvement over the current model the top four teams must be determined specifically instead of allowing them to go to different bowl games.

Two of the Rose, Orange, Fiesta, and Sugar will host the semifinals. The bowls which host shall be determined by conferences’ bowl tie-ins. The remaining bowls will remain a part of the BCS along with a fifth BCS bowl (Cotton, Gator, Outback, Peach, or Sun) to keep the number of BCS teams at 10 and the automatic berth to non-BCS Champions (ie Utah or Boise State).

2) Keeping A Traditional Rose Bowl

Everyone who has done their research about potential playoffs knows that the Big Ten, Pac-10, and Rose Bowl are all standing in the way. These entities wish to keep their Rose Bowl tradition intact and in doing so have prevented a playoff from materializing.

The solution is to keep the Rose Bowl tradition intact. The heuristics around this are that if champions (co-champions included) of these two conferences are both in the Top Five then the two are pitted in the Rose Bowl AS a Semifinal. If only one team is in the Top Five then a replacement is found (just as happens now) and the Rose Bowl is played as another BCS game.

This past year the Rose Bowl would have lost top ranked Ohio State to the playoff and Illinois would have been selected as a replacement, just as what actually happened. Applying this to the past 10 BCS years only three times would the Rose Bowl would miss out on a conference champion (2001 Oregon, 2004 USC, and 2007 Ohio State).

In contrast, the Rose Bowl already missed out on the following five teams because they ascended to the National Championship (2002 Ohio State, 2004 USC, 2005 USC, 2006 Ohio State, 2007 Ohio State). This discounts occasions under the old BCS format when the Rose Bowl hosted the National Championship in which case the the total would rise from five to seven.

Therefore, this ensures greater tradition in the Rose Bowl game. I would think that these conferences should be lining up to accept this proposal. This format would reduce occasions when the Rose Bowl selects a non-champion in half!

3) Keeping At-Large Teams in the Playoff And BCS

The selection procedure for the four playoff teams would occur as follows. First, if the Pac-10 and Big Ten place two champions (or co-champions) in the Top Five then those two teams are matched in the Rose Bowl as a semifinal.

Second, the top two teams are guaranteed two spots. Third, if any spots remain then the top conference champion(s) in the Top Five obtain those spots. Finally, if a spot still remains then the top at-large team is included.

The pairing of teams is done by allowing the top two (or one, if the Rose Bowl is a semifinal) of the ACC, Big 12, and SEC champions (if in the playoff) to host their respective bowls (Orange, Fiesta, Sugar). The remaining two playoff teams are paired to avoid rematches or to have the highest ranked host against the lowest ranked team remaining.

The BCS maintains the same team selection procedures for the remaining three games as before. Teams like Boise State, Utah, and Hawaii still have the same opportunities to play in the BCS, as will all other teams in the top 14 of the Final BCS Standings.

The full slate of games for this past year would have looked like this:

No. 7 USC vs. No. 13 Illinois in the Rose Bowl
No. 5 Georgia vs. No. 10 Hawaii in the Cotton Bowl
No. 2 LSU vs. No. 4 Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl
No. 8 Kansas vs. No. 9 West Virginia in the in the Fiesta Bowl
No. 3 Virginia Tech vs. No. 1 Ohio State in the Orange Bowl

Conclusion

Should the BCS, college football, and those parties concerned about the Rose Bowl finally come around to a playoff, expect this to be the format used.

It is a plus to the fans thirsty for a playoff. It is a plus to those schools (Miami and Washington 2000, Oregon 2001, USC 2003, Auburn 2004) which deserved a shot at the title. It is a plus to the Rose Bowl parties, concerned about tradition. It is a plus to the Networks who can generate more money per BCS game.

Perhaps it is irony but this model which was constructed two years may find its worst fit this year. The most likely outcome for the playoff will be the SEC Champion and Texas playing in the Sugar Bowl while Oklahoma and USC play in the Fiesta Bowl. This looks to be a strong playoff construct.

However, this will most likely be the second time (2001 being the first) when the Rose Bowl gets it worse than under the current system. Currently USC and Penn State are tentatively scheduled for the Rose Bowl. However, USC is ascending into the playoff while neither Oregon nor Oregon State are in the BCS top 14.

This means that for the first time under this model the Rose Bowl would have to select outside its traditional conferences; that is, unless the BCS implements an allowance for the Rose Bowl to select outside the top 14 for an at large replacement.

At any rate this model would produce strong playoff matchups to determine a National Champion on the field.

Go to Source

Big Ten bowl delay could hurt fan travel costs

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

My good friend Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for CNBC and used to do the same for ESPN.com, had an excellent blog post earlier this week about how the Big Ten’s delay in announcing bowl pairings likely will increase travel costs for fans. 

Flights aren’t getting any cheaper, and in an already struggling economy, Big Ten fans could have some tough decisions about whether or not to travel to their teams’ bowl games. Keep in mind that Big Ten fans usually have to travel farther than anyone else to bowls and live in states (Michigan, Ohio) that are being hit extremely hard by the economic downturn. 

While other leagues already have announced bowls, the Big Ten likely will wait until Sunday to announce all the pairings because the league hopes to get two teams into BCS games, which would shuffle the selection. Penn State fans are the only ones who can book their bowl travel plans right now. 

It’s a tough situation. Non-BCS bowls like the Outback, Alamo and Insight could assume Ohio State will get a BCS at-large berth and extend invitations to teams that they think will be available after the final BCS standings are released. But things could change this weekend, and bowls could miss out on more attractive teams.

Still, Rovell brings up some excellent points as he describes his own difficulty in trying to attend Northwestern’s bowl matchup:

When you look at the attendance for these second-tier bowls, you are going to see one thing that’s going to be interesting. While you’ll still be able to correlate size of fan base to butts in the seats, you’ll notice that the bowls that will do better will be the bowls in which at least one of the teams is within a 12-hour drive. That’s probably the max someone is willing to drive, even with cheap gas prices. …

The only thing that can be done for me is for the Big Ten and the bowls to realize that, for the sake of these unprecedented times, they should announce all the Big Ten slots [minus where Ohio State goes] now. Otherwise, I’ll be watching on my flat screen.

I went to a major travel Web site and looked at air travel costs from Big Ten-area airports to some possible bowl sites, based on two- or three-night stays. I’ll revisit this in a few days to see if these costs increase. These are estimates.

OHIO STATE

Possible bowl destination: Fiesta (Jan. 5 in Tempe, Ariz.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 5, departing Columbus on Jan. 3 and returning from Phoenix on Jan. 6. 

Possible bowl destination: Sugar (Jan. 2 in New Orleans)

Roundtrip travel cost: 5, departing Columbus on Dec. 31 and returning from New Orleans on Jan. 3.

MICHIGAN STATE

Possible bowl destination: Capital One (Jan. 1 in Orlando)

Roundtrip travel cost: 3, departing Detroit on Dec. 30 and returning from Orlando on Jan. 2. 

Possible bowl destination: Outback (Jan. 1 in Tampa, Fla.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 8, departing Detroit on Dec. 30 and returning from Tampa on Jan. 2 (note: You could reduce the cost by flying into Orlando, only 81 miles away). 

IOWA

Possible bowl destination: Outback (Jan. 1 Tampa, Fla.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 9, departing Cedar Rapids on Dec. 30 and returning from Tampa on Jan. 2. 

Possible bowl destination: Alamo (Dec. 29 in San Antonio)

Roundtrip travel cost: 8, departing Cedar Rapids on Dec. 27 and returning from San Antonio on Dec. 30. 

NORTHWESTERN

Possible bowl destination: Alamo (Dec. 29 in San Antonio)

Roundtrip travel cost: 2.50, departing Chicago on Dec. 27 and returning from San Antonio on Dec. 30.

Possible bowl destination: Outback (Jan. 1 in Tampa, Fla.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 2, departing Chicago on Dec. 30 and returning from Tampa on Jan. 2.

WISCONSIN

Possible bowl destination: Champs Sports (Dec. 27 in Orlando)

Roundtrip travel cost: 4 (with two stops) departing Madison, Wis., on Dec. 26 and returning from Orlando on Dec. 28. The cost would be 5 nonstop departing from Milwaukee. 

Possible bowl destination: Insight (Dec. 31 in Tempe, Ariz.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 8, departing from Madison, Wis., on Dec. 29 and returning from Phoenix on Jan. 1. The cost would be 2 (with two stops) from Milwaukee. 

MINNESOTA

Possible bowl destination: Champs Sports (Dec. 27 in Orlando)

Roundtrip travel cost: 0, departing Minneapolis on Dec. 26 and returning from Orlando on Dec. 28. 

Possible bowl destination: Insight (Dec. 31 in Tempe, Ariz.)

Roundtrip travel cost: 0, departing Minneapolis on Dec. 29 and returning from Phoenix on Dec. 31. 

Go to Source

Out of the spotlight, Big Ten tries to stay busy

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

Tim Brewster would rather spend this week in the film room and on the practice field instead of inside airplanes and rental cars. 

The Minnesota coach shares the opinion of many Big Ten fans, who would love to watch their favorite teams in action Saturday.

Despite the addition of a bye week, the Big Ten finished the regular season a full two weeks before the other five BCS conferences. So while the college football spotlight shines on championship games (SEC, Big 12, ACC) and BCS bowl contenders (USC, Cincinnati), the Big Ten has nudged itself backstage. 

It doesn’t help that the Big Ten doesn’t have a team in the BCS title mix, but it has become the forgotten conference right now. 

“I would like to play on, to be quite honest,” Brewster said. “I don’t mind playing a game the week after Thanksgiving at all. It’s something I’ve been accustomed to. I don’t have any problem at all with playing on as long as you have a bye [week].”

Before taking the Minnesota job last year, Brewster usually spent Thanksgiving week and beyond immersed in game preparation.

He came to Minnesota after spending five years in the NFL, which always plays through December. Brewster previously worked on Mack Brown’s staff at Texas, which played Texas A&M on Thanksgiving or the day after and participated in the Big 12 championship in 1999 and 2001. 

“Nationally televised games at this time of year are very special,” Brewster said. “People right now are watching college football with tremendous anticipation and excitement. To me, playing right now, playing this time of year, the most important thing is playing meaningful games, playing against a big rival opponent. That creates tremendous excitement for your football team, for your fans, for everybody.”

The Big Ten sacrifices the excitement and attention to uphold its tradition of finishing the regular season before the Thanksgiving holiday. Only when Big Ten coaches demanded a bye week did the league relent and agree to have games after Thanksgiving.

Read more

Big Ten mailbag Part II

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

It’s time for the second half of today’s mailbag.

But first, a couple of housekeeping items. There has been some confusion about a recent post, where I wrote that Iowa’s recent trips to the Outback Bowl wouldn’t be held against the Hawkeyes for possible selection this season. This wasn’t a shot at Iowa. It referred to the fact that bowls sometimes like to select new teams rather than ones they have hosted recently. But from everyone I’ve spoken to, the Outback Bowl would have no trouble selecting Iowa again, and I’m sure the Hawkeyes would represent well.

Also, one user brought up the fact that there were no Big Ten power rankings this week. With no games last Saturday, the power rankings didn’t change from after Week 13. 

OK, on to your questions. 

Jamal from Baltimore writes: Adam, great work on the blog, I’ve been reading it all season. I’ve heard some internet rumors (take those for whatever they’re worth) that Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley may be looking into the Syracuse opening. Do you think the ‘Cuse would hire Bradley? Would it really leave Penn State, and would it be because of administration’s desire to have a national search for head coach when JoePa retires?

Adam Rittenberg: If I were Syracuse AD Daryl Gross, I’d definitely give Bradley a call. Bradley should be Joe Paterno’s successor at Penn State, but the longer the school drags its feet in naming him coach-in-waiting, the more he has to start looking out for No. 1. Now I don’t believe Bradley is at the top of Syracuse’s list, but he should get a look and absolutely deserves to be a head coach somewhere (Penn State!). He seems very happy at Penn State, but he has to be wondering why a succession plan hasn’t been put in place like it has elsewhere. He’s the obvious choice there, but someone is holding up the process, whether it’s the administration or Paterno. 

---

Suzanne from Miami writes: Hey Adam, Maybe you can answer this question in Part 2. If UCLA pulls a ridiculous upset this weekend and Oregon State goes to the Rose Bowl, will that push USC out of BCS bowl and keep Ohio State in? Bowl games don’t usually like picking teams that have just lost, correct?

Adam Rittenberg: It’s an interesting question, Suzanne. My sense is that USC would still get a BCS at-large berth despite the loss. But it could go either way. The Trojans have the head-to-head win against Ohio State, but anyone with any football sense can see this Ohio State team is much better than the one that visited the L.A. Coliseum on Sept. 13. Also, USC would have a bad loss on its résumé, while Ohio State’s only two losses are against Top 10 teams (USC and Penn State). Both teams are very attractive to bowl games, even at 10-2, so it would create an interesting situation. My concern is that Ohio State’s recent BCS title game performances would be held against it in determining the at-large spot. Boise State also could be in play should USC lose. 

Read more

Next Page »