Monday, December 8, 2008

A better college football playoff plan

Thinking about a solution to the BCS problem, I came up with a 16-team playoff system, using conference champions as the top 11 slots, with wild card teams filling out the field of 16. But some don't like that. Some complain that teams like Troy or Buffalo shouldn't make the mix while better teams like Oklahoma State, Georgia Tech, Brigham Young, or Ball State are left out. So, if its the best teams that should fill the field of 16, then there's an easy solution:
  1. Florida
  2. Alabama
  3. Georgia
  4. Mississippi
  5. Louisiana State
  6. South Carolina
  7. Vanderbilt
  8. Kentucky
  9. Arkansas
  10. Tennessee
  11. Auburn
  12. Mississippi State
  13. Oklahoma
  14. Texas
  15. Southern California
  16. Utah
Problem solved.

Solving the BCS problem

The mythical college football championship game is set. And lots of people are not happy. Me? I don't have a dog in the hunt. Or Dawg, to be specific. Still, there are some unhappy campers. And I'm in that group. Despite my not having a team of interest in the mix ... or close to the mix ... I'm in the unhappy group because ... well, let's face it: I have strong opinions. But I do more than just whine about something I don't like; I have a solution. Check that. I have THE solution: A 16-team playoff that uses the BCS for seeding. Automatic Bids There are 11 conferences. The 11 conference champions get an automatic spot. The remaining 5 spots ... call them "wild card" spots ... would be taken up by the top teams in the BCS standings that don't get an automatic berth. Here are the 11 conference champions, listed alphabetically by conference:
ConferenceChampion
Atlantic CoatVirginia Tech
Big EastCincinnati
Big TenPenn State
Big 12Oklahoma
Conference USAEast Carolina
Mid-AmericaBuffalo
Mountain WestUtah
Pacific 10Southern California
SoutheasternFlorida
Sun BeltTroy
Western AthleticBoise State
Wild Card Teams Here are the top five teams (according to the BCS) that did not win their conference.
RankTeam
3.Texas
4.Alabama
7.Texas Tech
10.Ohio State
11.Texas Christian
There are two ways of doing the seeding. One is using the BCS to rank them, plain and simple. But that's too plain and simple for me. I actually like the way the NFL does it. In the NFL, the division champs get the top seeds, and the wild cards get the leftover slots, regardless of record. For instance, in 2007, Tampa Bay was the #4 seed in the NFC, winning the South with a 9-7 record, while the Giants were the #5 seed, despite having 10-6 record. Likewise, Pittsburgh took the AFC North with a 10-6 record, and were seeded 4th, while Jacksonville, sporting a better record (11-5), was 5th seed, since they didn't win their division. Seeding Using that as a model, here's the 2008 NCAA Division I-A (using the older name) playoff seeding:
SeedTeamConferenceRecordBCS
1.OklahomaBig 1212-11
2.FloridaSoutheast12-12
3.Southern CaliforniaPacific 1011-15
4.UtahMountain West12-06
5.Penn StateBig Ten11-18
6.Boise StateWestern Athletic12-09
7.CincinnatiBig East11-212
8.Virginia TechAtlantic Coast9-419
9.East CarolinaConference USA9-4none
10.TroySun Belt8-4none
11.BuffaloMid-America8-5none
12.TexasWild card11-13
13.AlabamaWild card12-14
14.Texas TechWild card11-17
15.Ohio StateWild card10-210
16.Texas ChristianWild card10-211
Matchups This will set up some interesting matchups:
  • (16) Texas Christian at (1) Oklahoma
  • (15) Ohio State at (2) Florida
  • (14) Texas Tech at (3) Southern California
  • (13) Alabama at (4) Utah
  • (12) Texas at (5) Penn State
  • (11) Buffalo at (6) Boise State
  • (10) Troy at (7) Cincinnati
  • (9) East Carolina at (8) Virginia Tech
The 8 winners would play the following week, with the top 4 remaining seeds hosting the bottom 4 remaining seeds. The 8 first-round losers and the 4 second-round losers would get bowl invitations. And pretty good bowl invitations, in all likelihood. The final four would play as part of the January 1st bowl games. The final two would play a week later for the real ... not mythical ... championship.

Sunday, December 7, 2008

So how else were we right?

During the run-up to the recent election, those of us on the right said that an Obama election would be bad in several ways, including for the economy. And now, Barack Hussein Obama agrees:
In the intervening weeks, the economy has showed clear signs of worsening. Employers said they eliminated more than 500,000 jobs in November alone and retailers reported disappointing holiday-season sales. "The economy is going to get worse before it gets better," he said twice in the early moments of the interview, taped Saturday in Chicago.
What else does he now agree with us about? That he'll be weak on national defense? That he'll raise your taxes? That he'll increase government interference in your life? That he'll send the country to hell in a handbasket? I wonder: Regarding Obama, what else we were right about?

lolcat of the day

Having a cat ... or in my case, The Wife having a cat ... means that I get to appreciate all the wonderful things that cats do. Like leaving dead animals at the front door.

Monday, December 1, 2008

Two words

We all have out quirks. Some are cute. Some are silly. Some are ... aggravating. Mine? I don't have quirks. Just my own special way of doing things. Like taking care about what I say. Words are important. Some people refuse to say certain words. They'll come up with substitutes for other words. This is common with profanity. The word "darn" for instance is used by some instead of "damn." The TV show Battlestar Galactica came up with the word "frack" (in the 1970s series; it's "frak" in the current series). It, of course, is used instead of the word ... well, you know what word it replaces. The list goes on and on. My biggest quirk about words, though, isn't about finding replacements for curse words. Its about avoiding words that ... seem worse. For instance, there are two words that I've never used. And another two words I don't plan to use. Oh, I've used the words separately. But never together. In my lifetime, I've referred most Presidents by their title and name. But not all. I never referred to President Eisenhower as such during his presidency. I was too young. Same thing with President Kennedy. I've used the phrases "President Eisenhower" and "President Kennedy" but never during their terms in office. Or, at least, if I did, I don't remember doing it. But, beginning with President Johnson, I remember using the title with the name. Also with President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, and President Bush. With the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, though, I just couldn't bring myself to say ... that phrase. Really. I've never written it. I've never uttered it. I can hardly think it. During those years, I referred to Bill Clinton either by his name ("Bill Clinton" or "William Jefferson Clinton" depending on the circumstances), or by his title alone. I would say "the President" or "the Commander in Chief" or whatever the circumstances called for. But I never could bring myself to say ... those two words together. That phrase. Still can't stomach it. And now, Barack Hussein Obama will likely be elected to the highest office in the land. When the electors meet in two weeks, it would be very, very, very, very, very unlikely for those pledged to Barack Hussein Obama to do anything other than vote for Barack Hussein Obama. We'll find out for certain in January, when the votes of the electors are actually opened and counted. I don't expect a surprise. Which means that I'll be spending the next four years using other words to describe the person sitting in the Oval Office. Right now, I have no problem calling the current office-holder by his title and name: President Bush. Come noon January 20th, I won't be able to say those two words: the combination of the office and the name. But not to worry. There are plenty of other words and phrases I have for the likes of Barack Hussein Obama.

lolcat of the day