The Worst Snub of All

[Jason G]

How about Iowa, tied for 4th place in the Big Ten and by the tiebreakers was the 4th seed in the Big 10 tourney. Six teams make the big dance and Iowa also does not even make the NIT.

I don't think they belonged in the NCAA tourney, but not getting invited to the NIT was ridiculous.

I agree with you on Iowa being a snub too, just not as big of one as Akron. The Zips became only the third team EVER to have 26 wins and not be in the NCAA tourney, and I don't think any 26 win team has ever been snubbed by the NIT before. They treated Akron like a "low major" and not like the best team from the 14th (out of 32) best conference. Akron had an RPI of 68 and every other team from #1 to #76 (I believe) made the postseason. I mean Akron made the NIT last year with only 22 wins and this year they were easily better.

My biggest postseason snubs this year:

1. Akron
2. Washington
3. Iowa

Still trying to figure out how San Diego State, Hofstra, and Fresno State got in ahead of these three, and keep in mind I am usually the guy who always is pleading the case for the "little" guy.

[Spence]

When people ask me if I think there should be a playoff in college football I usually say no. This isn't because I don't think a playoff is a good way to choose a champion it is simply because I don't think the "powers that be" would ever create a fair format that would also maintain much of the bowl structure. In any playoff each conference champion would have to be included in the interest of fairness, they'd never do that. The only type of CFB playoff I would ever be in favor of would be one that was similar to what the NFL does (conference champs and possibly a very few wild cards).

The one thing basketball does have going for it is that no matter who you are if you make the postseason and keep winning you will be crowned as champion. That isn't necessarily the case in football.

Still what makes college football the best is that the regular season games mean just as much as the postseason ones in most cases.

If you put all the conference champs in a playoff, you would get the same situation that you are railing about with Akron in b-ball. Just because you are a conference champ doesn't mean you should be considered one of the best teams.

The only way a playoff of conference champions would work in football and be fair to all involved is to cut the teams in 1A down to 45 teams and create a selective scheduling system where the best teams from the year before play the best schedules. Much the way the NFL does it.

The problem with trying to playoff college football or basketball is that there are too many teams. When you have 100-150 teams to consider, you can't possibly come up with system that is fair to all involved. It just isn't possible.

A playoff in football couldn't maintain the bowl system. Bowls are one game events. People travel across country and stay for an extended period of time. If a playoff were put into place in football they would have to regionalize the venues to make it attractive to the fans. That would be the end of the bowl structure.

[Eric]

Off-topic, but Spence, it looks as if I owe your Buckeyes an apology. A Final Four bid doesn't exactly = overrated

You have to admit though, they are the luckiest team in America.

[Jason G]

If you put all the conference champs in a playoff, you would get the same situation that you are railing about with Akron in b-ball. Just because you are a conference champ doesn't mean you should be considered one of the best teams.

I agree with your statement, but I never said anything about a playoff including only teams that are considered to be the best teams. It doesn't have to be that way at all. If that were the case it would be just like the BCS as far as who gets to participate. I am of the belief that if you couldn't win your own conference why should you be able to win the title for the nation? It is illogical to me that a team can be third best in a conference but be the best team in the nation. The way I propose who participates is decided on the field and not by perception or by polls or computers.
I am not sure how that compares with my rant on Akron basketball. My main problem with the Zip basketball situation is that the second place MAC team (only due to an unbalanced schedule) didn't get in a tournament over teams that finished way down in the standings of their own leagues. If only conference champs were taken I have no beef.

The only way a playoff of conference champions would work in football and be fair to all involved is to cut the teams in 1A down to 45 teams and create a selective scheduling system where the best teams from the year before play the best schedules. Much the way the NFL does it.

As we have discussed before, I have been a huge proponent of systematic scheduling for well over two decades now. I agree that would be a huge step for CFB if they ever went that route. I'm not sure why you say you'd have to reduce the number of 1-A teams or have scheduling based on previous years. I just don't see why those things would be necessary, especially with systematic scheduling for all.

A playoff may only contain the 11 conference champs and let's say 3 wild cards (chosen by the current BCS standards or some other system), with conf champs being seeded better than the WC's. The top couple of teams could get a first round bye. Since there wouldn't be that many teams involved it wouldn't have to destroy the bowl system at all. It may eliminate the biggest bowls like the ones currently in the BCS but it wouldn't have to change the "lesser" bowls which are the ones I was referring to earlier. Why would a playoff have an adverse effect on the Motor City Bowl or the New Orleans Bowl, other than conference tie-ins?

Anyway, this is all just my thoughts and a little hopeful conjecture. I know it will never happen and therefore my official stand will remain that I am not in favor of a playoff in CFB.

[Spence]

The big reason I don't like playoffs is that they really don't change anything. Most of the time the two teams that play for the championship deserve to play for the championship. Even when we have had controversy, (Auburn a couple years ago) the teams that have played had a good argument to play in the game. Were they the best two - looking back, probably not in all cases, but a playoff wouldn't change that.

I agree that Akron should at least have made the NIT. The reason they didn't probably had more to do with money then talent. But this is the playoff system that everyone holds up in high esteem and it isn't any better then the BCS. The BCS can be unfair. I know that. The BCS makes you be good in years prior to actually make a championship run. That is unfair to the mid majors, because they usually have to catch lightening in a bottle and they have a hard time being great two years in a row. They can be good, but not great very often.

Nothing in football or basketball is decided entirely on the field. At some point the process is subjective in both sports.

[Eric]

DING, DING, DING!! You hit the nail on the head. It is subjective no matter which way you slice it. Teams are going to make it and teams won't make it in the NCAA tournament. Teams get overseeded and they lose later when a better team gets underseeded and loses earlier. That doesn't solve anything.

At least college football tries to take some subjectivity out of the process by including the computers. And besides, with 2/3s of the BCS being composed of the human polls, they aren't really going to change unless there is some drastic discrepency between rankings.

[Jason G]

The BCS can be unfair. I know that. The BCS makes you be good in years prior to actually make a championship run. That is unfair to the mid majors, because they usually have to catch lightening in a bottle and they have a hard time being great two years in a row. They can be good, but not great very often.

Nothing in football or basketball is decided entirely on the field. At some point the process is subjective in both sports.

Actually I think one of the keys to having mid-majors, as you call them, become more competitive on a national scale is for them to have a clear path for them to get to a championship position. Right now schools in conferences like C-USA and the MAC can't get the same kind of players that schools in the Big Ten or SEC can. This is, at least in part, due to the fact that recruits don't see schools in these types of leagues having an opportunity at a championship no matter how good they may actually be. That is why I say I would only be in favor of a playoff if all conferences were represented. Sure, it may be ugly at first but over time it would equal the playing field greatly IMO.

As far as the subjectiveness quote above...you are correct in that statement much of the time but in basketball the subjectiveness is taken out to a degree when it comes to conference champions, they get in no matter what, no selection process can leave them out. The subjectiveness only comes in to play with at-large bids and seeding. The bottom line still remains that if you are a Division 1 college basketball team and you win every game you play you will be the national champion. It doesn't matter if the school is Belmont, New Mexico or North Carolina you still will have earned the title. Football is a different (I didn't say better or worse) animal as subjectiveness always enters into things.

[Spence]

I think that isn't entirely correct. I basketball team like Belmont has the odds stacked against them in the tournament. It is true that if they win all their games the can win a national championship, but look at opponents they have to play to do it. There is a reason the low seeds never make it to the championship game. Just because they are in a playoff that makes it statistically possible to win a championship doesn't mean they actually have a chance to win. Even George Mason, who had an amazing run, couldn't get it done at the end.

[Eric]

The BCS has automatic qualifying rules. They have to take the conference champions of the major 6 conferences and they have a certain criteria for non-BCS schools. They have automatic qualifiers for BCS bids, just ask 2005 Ohio State.

Football has a different postseason. Only 10 teams make it to the BCS while 65 can compete in the NCAA tournament. The NCAA can afford for the smaller conference champions to make the tournament.

I might be the only one who thinks this is a good idea, but what if the BCS takes all of the conference champions (tell me if this is what you are suggesting and I haven't latched onto it yet). This year, for example, Central Michigan, MAC Champion, could've played BYU, MWC champion. Or however it might go. The smaller conference champions are paired up with other smaller conference champions and the highest rated BCS mid-major champion gets a game with an at-large or another big conference champion. For instance:

BCS Game #1: Troy vs. Houston
BCS Game #2: CMU vs. BYU
BCS Game #3: Boise State vs. Oklahoma
BCS Game #4: LSU vs. Notre Dame
BCS Game #5: Louisville vs. Wake Forest
BCS Game #6: Michigan vs. USC
BCS Game #7: Ohio State vs. Florida

This way, 14 teams make the field including the small conference champions. This would be a better way to redistribute the money for smaller conferences. This way, you end up with 3 at-large bids, 5 small-conference champions, and 6 major conference champions. The "little" guy gets equal representation, the marquee names still play other marquee names, and you have your BCS champion. Good idea, huh?

I'm not really sure if this is what you are proposing or not, but I think this might be cool as a college football fan. It may not be exactly what I would want, but this would be a pretty cool format to see.

[Spence]

But football only has one game with championship implications. The rest are exhibition games. Football gets as many teams into post season as the NCAA tourney does. Football just sets it up better for the players and the fans. Most bowl cities put on a dog and pony show for the players and the fans. Players get a chance to see things and go to cities that they other wise wouldn't get to see. Basketball is more of a business trip type thing. Players may get to go to San Antonio, but how much of the city do they really get to see. They are only there a few days and it is all about the games. The bowls system gives players an experience (aside from football), basketball isn't even close to the same for players. Also fans go to this city for a weekend then another city for another weekend and so on. No time to enjoy the experience. I would absolutely hate for that to happen in football.

Ohio State is in the final four in basketball and what is the main story in Ohio sports today. Spring practice begins on Thursday. The Tressel press conference opening spring practice. Jake Stoneburner commits to Ohio State. Ohio State baseball to donate proceeds from the Toledo game to Bluffton College and finally Ohio State and Georgetown meet in Atlanta.

The biggest game for Ohio State basketball since 1999 and it isn't the lead story in the local newspaper. I wouldn't want that to ever happen in football.

[mountainman]

I think that isn't entirely correct. I basketball team like Belmont has the odds stacked against them in the tournament. It is true that if they win all their games the can win a national championship, but look at opponents they have to play to do it. There is a reason the low seeds never make it to the championship game. Just because they are in a playoff that makes it statistically possible to win a championship doesn't mean they actually have a chance to win. Even George Mason, who had an amazing run, couldn't get it done at the end.

That's a very good point, Spence. I've heard it said that a 16 seed has never in the history of the tournament beaten a 1 seed .... makes me wonder how many times a 15 seed has beaten a 2 seed and so forth as far as the top seeds versus the low seeds.

Billybud, probably said it best when he said this tournament is about inclusion. Inclusion ..... You bet, but realistic and equal opportunity for all teams that qualify to win the title ..... history says no way. There's some smoke and mirrors about it when it's seeded the way it is ..... one might ask, 'Why not just draw the qualifiers out of a hat and seed them up by luck of the draw?' Well, that would render the regular season games pretty much meaningless.

[Spence]

Right. The tournament isn't about getting the best 64 teams (if that is even impossible. Billybud is dead on about the tourney being about inclusion. I could name several schools that would be favored over all the 15 and 16 seeds that didn't even make the tournament. You Mountaineers would be one of them. The NCAA isn't about finding the best 64 teams. It is about making all these fringe teams believe they have a chance when they absolutely do not. Sure every few years an 11 or 12, from some school only the most avid basketball fan has heard of, makes a mini run in the tournament. But tell me one time that one of those schools has won the whole thing? It hasn't happened. At least the BCS doesn't pretend. Very few schools have a shot to win a championship, playoff or no playoff. Football makes you prove you can win over time. It isn't always right either, but the teams who get left out in football usually only have themselves to blame. If they put together a schedule that proved to the voters they were better then the powerhouse programs, they would make it.

Boise State last year was a good example. I think they proved in the bowl game they were good enough to deserve a shot in the championship game, but they never proved it during the season. They beat a team who beat a team. It has nothing to do with how good they were, it has everything to do with them setting up a schedule that would be conducive to go undefeated and make the BCS at-large, which they accomplished. If that is the goal, then fine, but if the goal is to win a championship they need to play USC instead of Oregon St or beat Oklahoma during the regular season instead of the bowl game.

That doesn't mean that bias isn't part of the equation on football. Ohio State got in the championship because the were undefeated and they were Ohio State. The schedule strength of the Buckeye's wasn't as good as the experts thought. Texas wasn't the team people thought they were and neither was Iowa, Penn St., or Michigan. Certain teams will always get the benefit of the doubt, because of their past history. Notre Dame, Alabama, Florida State, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State,Penn St, USC, UCLA, Georgia, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska. If any of these teams get on a run they will fly up the polls. I dog Notre Dame badly about this because they are the most favored team, but all of the above teams are teams who recieve special treatment in the polls. They don't have to do as much to be in position to play for championships as the other teams.

We often talk about the difference between mid majors and majors, but the truth is that only a few majors have the golden ticket up the poll ladder. The rest have to do more to be ranked in position to play for a championship. That isn't fair and even though I follow one of the teams involved, I know it isn't completely fair. On the other hand, if you look at historical performance, you would be hard pressed to find many schools that can match the history of winning that these schools own. I would wager to say that these schools combined championships would be more then all the others combined. So fair is in the eye of the beholder.

Until they actually come up with a system that would allow a real comparison of teams over the course of a season, I think the BCS is as fair a system as any. That isn't a shot at all the schools not mentioned above. It is just the way it is. If you had an employee who had a history of being more productive then everyone else, you are more likely to promote him. That doesn't mean that one of the others might be a better choice in that postion, but past history dictates that this guy has earned the first crack at the job.

[Eric]

I would give Boise State a shot at a national title if they went undefeated this year. I think that the win over Oklahoma (and I don't exactly want to downplay it, Oklahoma was not that great) should propel them to get a shot. As long as there are no other undefeated teams and there is not a 1 loss team with a terrific resume, they should get an opportunity.

If TCU beats Texas this year and finishes undefeated, they'll be crying for an opportunity. Would you give a national championship bid to TCU if this scenario happened and the 1 loss team didn't have a great resume?

[Spence]

Yes, I would because if the beat Texas and go undefeated, I think they deserve a shot. Although, I would like to see them schedule another good to average major or a top mid major.

I'm not against anyone getting to play in the game. I just think the body of work should be there before hand. If Boise State goes undefeated this year, riding the nations longest winning streak, then I think they will have proven they deserve a shot. Oklahoma is still Oklahoma. They make have had some issues last year, but they have big time talent all over the place. What Boise State did by beating them was real.

[BYUfan1]

I don't think only having to win your conference tournament promotes weak scheduling. We are mainly taking about the smaller conferences and many of those schools are forced to play many road games because of finances and the lack of quality facilities to attract other schools. Teams in the MEAC and SWAC play some of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country. Delaware State was probably the best team in the MEAC and I believe they spent the entire month of December on the road playing high caliber competition.

Akron and teams like them suffer in the strength of schedule category not because they want easy games but because they cannot get Missouri Valley schools and other teams to play them at their place, and the coach does not want to send his team, especially seniors, to play on the road game after game after game.

I believe the winner of the conference in the regular season should the get the automatic NCAA bid, not the NIT bid. If a team wins the regular season crown, the players are thinking they are the best team therefore they are going to the NCAA's. Going to the NIT instead is a boobie prize, not a reward.

Another problem with that NIT rule is in conferences that have two divisions or there is a tie. Toledo had a better conference record than Akron, but Akron played in the tougher half. Holy Cross and Bucknell tied in the Patriot League, losing only to each other. I believe the tiebraker for the #1 seed was either a power rating or a strength of schedule thing. I feel Bucknell was a conference champion and should have gone to the NIT based on the rules, but I guess the NCAA considered Holy Cross to be the regular season conference champion and therefore had no obligation to take Bucknell for the NIT.