Ian Fitzsimmons (ESPN-Dallas) and Co. Had Interesting BCS Conversation Today

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
OK, I don't get to listen to these guys because of my hours, but I listened during lunch today. Interesting. Lemme just say that you'd get the idea that they read TideFans based on a number of things said today (with one notable exception).

I was listening during the one pm to 130 segment. They were discussing the upcoming four-team playoff. They got onto that subject because they started with June Jones's spring football idea. They're for it. So that led into a discussion of undefeated TCU a few years ago, and I don't know which one made the comment but his summary was excellent.

He said that he was given all sorts of grief locally but that the fact is that TCU is a GOOD MID-MAJOR program, with emphasis on the mid-major. His point was that TCU (and he also named Boise St) should be proud of what they accomplished and - they don't belong within 100 miles of any FBS playoff system or BCS championship selection. He then pointed out that people liked to argue that the reason college football needs a playoff is because in high school they have playoffs; he countered that argument by noting that in those playoffs the 5A champion doesn't play the 3A champion - the 3A champion doesn't stand up and shoot its mouth off about how great they are and challenge the 5A champ.

And that's when it got even more interesting, because they then discussed the BCS/4-team thing and the conference champion non-requirement. One of them (Ian, I think) channeled his inner kRaZy and said that what all the pundits seemed to forget about the BCS was that the BCS made it necessary for a fan in Columbus, Ohio to actually be concerned about a game in Waco, Texas. He noted that while that will be diminished slightly but that IF YOU REQUIRE A CONFERENCE CHAMPION then you will - literally - remove ALL INTEREST that a fan in Eugene, Oregon has about what's going on down in Tuscaloosa (and vice versa). After all....if you REQUIRE a conference champion then all you have to do is worry about your own little world. Oregon can simply worry about the Pac 12 and not whether or not Baylor goes undefeated (although this will matter if there are still unbeaten teams in the Big Five).

But then it got even more interesting. After saying there's no way on the planet they would want to be in what they called "Condi's Gang," they then said that as long as there is NOT a conference requirement then there WILL BE TWO SEC TEAMS IN THE PLAYOFF!!!! They did NOT call for this requirement - in fact, they pointed out that right now given the conference strength, it was only reasonable to conclude the probability of two one-loss SEC teams in a four-team setup. Their only beef with that is that they said it has to remain consistent - in other words, if you have a year like 2000, where the Pac 12 was the strongest conference and had two one-loss teams and a two-loss team - then that conference SHOULD have two representatives.

What made it funny, though, was they then began saying the reason there is NOT a conference champ requirement is because of pro-SEC bias in the setup (the exact opposite of what most folks here say). They concluded by noting that the positive to the whole thing is that if a team goes through the regular season in a major conference undefeated, then they are virtually assured of being there. The specific mention was last year's Ohio State team (one of the guys is a Buckeye fan), where the team was unbeaten for two solid years and yet there was an argument that even if they beat Michigan St then the SEC team (Auburn-Mizzou winner) should go over the unbeaten Big Ten team. As they noted - that was a genuine fear with the BCS but not now (assuming the Buckeyes won).

I don't know if you can get the podcast but it sure was interesting. They said a lot of things said here and what I found amusing was they take the exact opposite tack of many here - which leads me to think that maybe this setup might not be as bad as everyone is suggesting although this Blue Ribbon panel still gives me the creeps.
 

bamaga

Hall of Fame
Apr 29, 2002
13,378
8,238
282
JAWJA
So a Dallas radio station is saying the Big 12 is a mid major conference?:conf2: Or do they not realize in Dallas that TCU is in the Big 12? Dallas is almost their hometown
 
Last edited:

RTR91

Super Moderator
Nov 23, 2007
39,407
6
0
Prattville
So a Dallas radio station is saying the Big 12 is a mid major conference?:conf2: Or do they not realize in Dallas that TCU is in the Big 12? Dallas is almost their hometown
I gather they were meaning TCU isn't worthy of being in a BCS conference.
 

Catfish

Hall of Fame
Oct 11, 2005
6,566
2
45
60
Birmingham
They may be right. But, I still think that, as long as there are four major conference champs with one or zero losses, it'll be all conference champs in the playoffs. Regardless of how weak their conference or schedule may be in that year.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
So a Dallas radio station is saying the Big 12 is a mid major conference?:conf2: Or do they not realize in Dallas that TCU is in the Big 12? Dallas is almost their hometown
Two points:

1) They were specifically referring to the TCU of a few years ago, who whined about how they should be 2010 national champs (my fault in sharing, not theirs)

2) They DID say the Big 12 was not really all that good right now (which is true)



They made the point that kRaZy has made - the moment TCU started playing in a major conference, they were no longer a 11-1 or 12-0 team.
 

bamaga

Hall of Fame
Apr 29, 2002
13,378
8,238
282
JAWJA
Conference champion will be a component , along with several other factors. Last year an unbeaten Ohio state had a much worse SOS than a conference champion Auburn. SOS will also be a component. I can't see a 2nd SEC team getting in if we have 4one loss conference champions. Why I advocate 8 teams.the best team may finish 2nd in a conference like Bama a few years ago. Don't want to take that chance.

The part about TCU shouldn't be 100 miles of a playoff suggested to me they were talking this year.
 
Last edited:

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,918
187
June Jones spring football idea sounds great until you realize they will all lose those million dollar butt kickings from the big boys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Conference champion will be a component , along with several other factors. Last year an unbeaten Ohio state had a much worse SOS than a conference champion Auburn. SOS will also be a component. I can't see a 2nd SEC team getting in if we have 4one loss conference champions. Why I advocate 8 teams.the best team may finish 2nd in a conference like Bama a few years ago. Don't want to take that chance.

The part about TCU shouldn't be 100 miles of a playoff suggested to me they were talking this year.
No, it was that TCU didn't belong in the BCS title game; since they're Big 12 now, if they went unbeaten it would be difficult to keep them out.

Granted, I said it wrong. (Can y'all tell I'm exhausted? I'm usually pretty crisp but not toda)
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
I thought you were going to bring up his interview with the commissioner of the Big 12(minus whatever) conference. He made some remarks that it "pays to cheat", based on the NZAA's lack of stomach for going after............well, I can think of one repeat offender, but I digress, as usual. (I didn't hear it; only the promo for the interview. You can read his remarks on any number of sites.)

Anyway, Ian may read this. He did graduate from The Capstone. Only took him 7 years.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
I thought you were going to bring up his interview with the commissioner of the Big 12(minus whatever) conference. He made some remarks that it "pays to cheat", based on the NZAA's lack of stomach for going after............well, I can think of one repeat offender, but I digress, as usual. (I didn't hear it; only the promo for the interview. You can read his remarks on any number of sites.)

Anyway, Ian may read this. He did graduate from The Capstone. Only took him 7 years.
No, I didn't hear that.
 

Alasippi

Suspended
Aug 31, 2007
12,875
2
57
Ocean Springs, MS
The only criteria that should be considered in a 4 team playoff scenario is-"Who are the best four teams in America based on their season performance?".
If those teams are all from the SEC, so be it. If they're all from the Sun Belt, so be it.
The conference champion BS should be thrown into the garbage can and forgotten about.
sip
 

bamadp

All-SEC
Sep 24, 2006
1,023
0
0
Sheffield, Al.
The only criteria that should be considered in a 4 team playoff scenario is-"Who are the best four teams in America based on their season performance?".
If those teams are all from the SEC, so be it. If they're all from the Sun Belt, so be it.
The conference champion BS should be thrown into the garbage can and forgotten about.
sip
My thoughts exactly!!!

In the 16 year history of the BCS the top four included two teams from the same conference (as they now stand, which is how they'll be going forward) 12 years and 14 times total (two years there were four teams from two conferences). That increases the chances of a rematch in the first round and possible rematch in the NCG...something the "committee" has said they would try to avoid. My question is why make a concerted effort to avoid this? Why not let the voters vote and the computers compute and let the chips fall where they may? Because the PTB don't want to risk the possibility of a rematch 75% of the time in this "made for tv tourney".They didn't trust the 150 voters and six computers to give the results they needed so the BCS was scrapped in favor of this "committee" with this "criteria".

During the BCS era the objective was two match what were considered the two best teams in America...the popularity of those two teams wasn't a consideration. Now we're looking for the best "match ups" and "hope" that includes the best teams.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
In the 16 year history of the BCS the top four included two teams from the same conference (as they now stand, which is how they'll be going forward) 12 years and 14 times total (two years there were four teams from two conferences).
While I understand the thrust of what you're saying, the fact is that if those teams that had NOT been in Conference X actually been there then one of those two teams would have had a defeat and - therefore - you would NOT have what you're claiming here. For example, there is NO WAY Va Tech and FSU would have wound up undefeated in the current setup - even if they didn't play in the regular season, they have a conference title game. So this doesn't really make the point you're trying to make here.

1999 - FSU and VT, one would have been eliminated
2000 - FSU and Miami did not play in the same conference but since they did play - this helps you a bit
2001 - Colorado and Nebraska - makes your point correct
2004 - OU and Texas - also a point in your favor
2005 - USC, Texas, Penn St, Ohio St - true


But then we come to perhaps your best case scenario:


2006 - Ohio State, Florida, Michigan, LSU

So Ohio State beat Michigan and Florida beat LSU. Making this more amusing? LSU was higher ranked than Arkansas and beat them head-to-head.....but didn't even win their division. In this scenario, you would actually have AT MOST one rematch in the final (but you might have an all-SEC or all-Big Ten final).

Btw - I have no problem with that.

Then, there's 2008:
Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama

But again AT MOST you have ONE POTENTIAL REMATCH (note: the teams are 1-4, and 1 vs 4, 2 vs 3). Of course, if Alabama only falls to three, BOTH SEMIS are rematches.

2009 doesn't make your case because TCU was not in the Big 12 - and if they had been, they wouldn't have been ranked number four.

2010 - Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford - makes your case again

2011 - LSU, Alabama, OK St, Stanford - another point for you

2012 - Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida, Oregon

So Florida gets REWARDED for their loss to UGA, but UGA gets PUNISHED for losing the extra game?

2013 - Florida St, Auburn, Alabama, Mich St

(Well - an Iron Bowl rematch in the first round?)


So in the sixteen years of the BCS, NINE times we would have had TWO TEAMS from the same conference in a four-team playoff. And most of those would have been rematches (the 2012 Alabama-Florida game is a notable exception)


That increases the chances of a rematch in the first round and possible rematch in the NCG...something the "committee" has said they would try to avoid.

I'm sorry, but just five days ago they said the absolute opposite:

When the new College Football Playoff selection committee chooses and seeds the four-team field, it won’t try to avoid semifinal rematches of regular-season or conference-championship games.
That was the word Wednesday from Bill Hancock, executive director of the playoff, speaking at SEC Media Days.
The committee will put its four highest ranked teams in the playoff, which will open with the No. 1 seed playing No. 4 and No. 2 facing No. 3 in the semifinals. The seeds won’t be manipulated to delay possible rematches until the title game.



My question is why make a concerted effort to avoid this?
They explicitly are NOT going to do this.

Why not let the voters vote and the computers compute and let the chips fall where they may? Because the PTB don't want to risk the possibility of a rematch 75% of the time in this "made for tv tourney".They didn't trust the 150 voters and six computers to give the results they needed so the BCS was scrapped in favor of this "committee" with this "criteria".
This "criteria" does not exist per the story above.

During the BCS era the objective was two match what were considered the two best teams in America
No, it wasn't - that's what they SAID it was about (and on the whole the BCS DID do a good job - most of the time it's pretty obvious). Let's call it what it was: the BCS was a setup designed to make darn sure the big names got in the big game. That's a defensible position but it will also get you sued (as the late Arlen Specter brought this up) if you say it that way.

Fact is that if 2001 Nebraska or 2003 Oklahoma was one of the two best teams in the country then the BCS had some SERIOUS flaws. Now - to be fair - they did change it after the 2004 mess. Nebraska was not even a top five team in reality by the end of 2001. OU basically benefited from the fact everyone else just happened to have two losses.




...the popularity of those two teams wasn't a consideration. Now we're looking for the best "match ups" and "hope" that includes the best teams.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with the committee idea - but setting up straw men like this doesn't strengthen your argument. Note this: your argument here is taken from TIDEFANS COMMENTS (e.g. what "others" have said), not what "the committee " has said. There's been a lot of imputing of motives here, and while I think this committee is a pending disaster, we're stuck with it whether we like it or not.

Here's my optimistic side speaking: maybe the purpose of a committee can be to solve something like:

2003 - seed the Sooners THIRD (rather than first), and have LSU or USC in the top two spots. This alters the matchup, but it also "corrects" the poll that allowed this nonsense into the BCS title game. Granted - this one wouldn't matter so much because either way OU would have to beat BOTH LSU AND the Rose Bowl winner


2004 - "well, Texas lost in their home state by TWELVE but #5 Cal only lost to USC ON THE ROAD by six. Since both have one loss and neither is the champion - and since Cal's SOS is slightly better......we're picking Cal over Texas."

That would be both defensible and corrective (that's the poll where Mack Brown's whining got Texas the Rose Bowl).

2005 - "well, USC and Texas are in and so is Penn State....but we need to decide whether Ohio State (who barely lost to Texas and Penn St) or Oregon (who got killed by USC, 45-13) gets to go.....but if you consider Ohio St, you have to consider two-loss Notre Dame, who (get ready) lost to USC "on an illegal play and should have won" and by three to a Michigan State team that Ohio State beat by 11.


Who goes? Well, we all know the committee justifies Notre Dame by saying they "didn't really" lose to USC and thus only have one "real" loss. (Btw - THAT is something that has been listed as considered: injuries to key players, home or road, etc).


2006 - well, we'll take Pac Ten champion USC (who has played for the last three titles) over LSU, who didn't even win the divsion.

(I hate to break it to you but that would also be defensible - esp since USC played the tougher schedule).

Well, I've said too much.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.