|Who's da national champeen?||jtolleson|
Jan 5, 2004 7:09 AM
|After watching USC on Saturday I thought that I couldn't stomach a split title; they looked great.
I hadn't seen LSU until last night, but their defense was awesome. Made J White look ... well... ordinary. I was duly impressed, and now can't decide. Maybe a split title is really OK.
What do you say?
|As a Southerner in an SEC state||OldEdScott|
Jan 5, 2004 7:24 AM
|I must insist that LSU is. They'd whip the tails off the dog-ass Trojans.|
|Ditto LSU at Nat. Champs||Dale Brigham|
Jan 5, 2004 8:30 AM
|As a rabid Big 12 booster, I gotta' say that after considering the recent bowl results, the SEC was tougher (i.e., mo' betta' teams) than the Big 12 this season. SEC bowl teams went 3-0 against their Big 12 bowl opponents, and 5-2 overall. (In stark contrast, the Big 12 laid a 2-6 egg.) It could be argued that the Pac 10 was stronger than either of those conferences (a healthy 4-2 bowl record aids that argument), but I don't think you'd find many pundits that would support that line of thinking.
In short, IMHO, the SEC was the strongest conference, and LSU their best team. LSU beat the best team in the second best conference (Big 12); thus, LSU is the National Champion.
Dale "Just Glad My Red Raiders Beat Navy" (Sorry, sn69!)
|Split is fine with me,||TJeanloz|
Jan 5, 2004 8:01 AM
|I've got no problem with a split title. If Oklahoma had won convincingly last night, they would have had a good argument for a solo title - but considering the abuse LSU heaped on them and Jason White, that issue is moot.
USC was a strong team, but losing to Cal, combined with a generally weaker schedule, made them the weaker team on paper (though they were incredible on the field). If their one loss had been to Washington State, I'd feel differently - but their loss was to a considerably weaker team than either OK or LSU's one loss. So I was pretty comfortable with how things shook out. It seemed right that OK and LSU were the top two teams, and should be in the Sugar Bowl. It also seemed right that USC should play a Big 10 team in the Rose Bowl. Considering their domination of Michigan, it seems reasonable for them to share the National Championship.
The Oklahoma situation reminds me quite a bit of the Nebraska team in 2001/2002 - they were pounded in their last conference game of the season, still went to the Championship game, where they were embarrassed by Miami. Nebraska hasn't been the same since, and I wonder if Bob Stoops' magic is similarly fading.
|a case of East Coast bias-itis||Starliner|
Jan 5, 2004 11:11 AM
|Despite your usual tone of certainty, you know not what you are talking about, for your conclusions are not based upon evidence but rather opinions which are undoubtedly shaded toward the eastern side of the continental divide.
Let's examine your reasoning for dismissing USC's rightful place at the top of the heap:
LOSING TO CAL: A triple-overtime loss to a team which "upset" Virginia Tech in the Insight Bowl. LSU's loss was more decisive, 19-7 to Florida who got their butts kicked by Iowa in their bowl game. Cal would also kick Florida's a$$. Even if you don't believe so.
WEAKER SCHEDULE: Come on now. You've got to be kidding. What teams on USC's schedule are as puffball as UL-Monroe (a 1-11 season record), Western Illinois (a division 2 team who finished third in their league), and LA Tech (a 5-7 team in the WAC). Hmmm, USC did play a WAC team, Hawaii, and trounced them 61-32, but as Hawaii did kick Alabama's a$$ maybe they're not a good example of a puffball team.
USC totally dominated Michigan, while LSU wasn't assured of their victory until the final minute. OU's Heisman QB was terrible - he was missing receivers and making bad decisions. Not ready for prime time.... which brings me back to Cal - anybody who watched their bowl game against VA Tech would have seen a quarterback who would shred either OU or LSU to pieces.
It's perfectly clear that the title should go to the people's team - USC. The computer has a pretty serious east-coast glitch.
|You're getting far afield,||TJeanloz|
Jan 5, 2004 11:56 AM
|I will happily acknowledge that LSU's schedule was full of creampuffs, as was Oklahoma's, to some extent. Both schedules were also full of some pretty impressive competition. The real difference though, is that neither Oklahoma nor LSU LOST to any of their creampuffs.
Cal is a good team?
They were abused by Kansas State. Beaten by Colorado State, Utah, and a bad UCLA team. The idea that they (Cal) would have beaten LSU or Oklahoma is perposterous. Except that they might - in much the same way that it is ridiculous to think that Cal could beat USC, which of course, they did. The win over Virginia Tech doesn't verify anything - VA Tech was what, fourth in their conference (the weakest of the BCS conferences). VA Tech was riding a two game losing skid. Cal pulled a good upset at USC, but that doesn't make them a good team.
LSU's loss to Florida was more decisive than USC's loss to Cal - but it wasn't as painful for two reasons:
1. Florida is better than Cal This is practically indisputable. AND
2. LSU had more "quality" wins than USC. USC really only had one good win - against #14 Washington State. Beating Auburn to open the season gets honorable mention. LSU beat #11 Georgia, twice. And #18 Mississippi.
USC's schedule, vis-a-vis playing good teams, was simply not as strong as either LSU or OK. They may have played fewer bad teams - but they didn't play as many good teams.
|Now listen up, sonny||Starliner|
Jan 5, 2004 12:47 PM
|If Cal was "abused" by Kansas State (42-28; 535 tot. yds. vs. 440), then how would you describe the hurt KSU put on Oklahoma (35-7; 519 tot yds vs. 398). BTW, Cal played KSU in the first game of the season with a different QB; OU lost at the end of the season.
You underestimate Cal, because they were a team that took a while to find themselves. They did have flaws, but once they got their QB situation nailed down, they ended up being dangerous on a more consistent basis. So at the end of the season, which is really what we're all talking about, I'd take Cal over overhyped and overrated Florida anyday of the week. They'd be outcoached and outplayed.
As far as the rest of your reasoning as to "quality" wins, you are basing "quality" on a subjective ranking system which is tilted towards the east coast, so it's really pointless for me to attempt to argue.
All I can say is that when the final gun sounded on this year's football season, the strongest and most dominating team around at that time was USC. LSU's real good, but they're good at #2. Oklahoma, well I'd say they are from perhaps the most overhyped and overrated league in this nation, but that's another argument.
|That's actually a good philosophical argument||TJeanloz|
Jan 5, 2004 1:01 PM
|There is a reasonable question as to whether the "National Champion" should be the best team, over the course of a season, or the best team as of January 4. I'm of the school that says the entire season is important, but some people (usually those who advocate a playoff) believe that the end point is the only important moment.
One thing I REALLY don't understand is the "East Coast Bias" argument. Wasn't USC #1 in BOTH polls? The computers are not biased by geography - only the human voters are.
Cal took a while to find themselves, no doubt. But they weren't that good. Look, objectively, at the schedule and results from Cal, and tell me their season was impressive. Tell me it was a top-25 season. The problem is that the computers do look at these records objectively, and USC fans just don't like the outcome. There isn't an "east-coast bias", except that the Pac-10 is not the best conference in the Country (right now) and Pac-10 schools don't do a lot to schedule tough out-of-conference opponents to make up for it.
If USC had played Oklahoma's (or LSU's) schedule, it wouldn't surprise me if they went undefeated. USC was a really good team. But they didn't play a hard enough schedule to prove that they were better than LSU.
|USC's problem was that.....................||Len J|
Jan 5, 2004 1:42 PM
|their schedule was filled with historically strong teams having down years. Auburn, Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington....... They are being penalized by the BCS algorith (which was intended to ensure that schools didn't pad their record by scheduling weaker teams) because of the year thier opponents had. It's a shame, because I really do believe they are the best team right now. They dominated a very good Michigan team. I wouldn't be surpised if Michigan could beat both LSU & th Oklahoma team that showed up last night.
Okla suffered because White was clearly injured.
That being said, if USC took care of their own business, and beat Cal, this would be a moot conversation. It's hard to remember that most of these players are still teenagers.
I keep going back & forth on what this all means for the future. I've been rooting for a split championship in the hopes that it would force a playoff system. However, as a result of both the Rose Bowl & Last nights game being so important, ABC's ratings were up 27% for the Rose Bowl. Without the controversy, they would never have gotten such an audience. From a pure $'s & cents standpoint, the current sytem, screwed up though it is, made everyone of the big confrences a ton of money. Why should they change it?
|That's exactly right,||TJeanloz|
Jan 5, 2004 1:54 PM
|It was really unfortunate timing on USC's part, more than a Nebraska-like penchant for scheduling creampuffs. If you drew up their schedule 4 years ago (which they did), you would probably be thinking: that is going to be a really, really tough schedule. It is a shame, I also think they are probably the best team, but they didn't prove it, and they didn't prove it when they had the opportunity to (they COULD have been undefeated).
On paper, I think it's hard to argue [before the bowl games] that USC was a better team than either LSU or Oklahoma. On the field, it was fairly clear that USC was really good - but it was hard to judge whether they were better than Oklahoma. But I like the split championship - it encourages discussion, if nothing else.
Jan 5, 2004 2:24 PM
|USC played essentially the same schedule as last year with BYU and Hawaii taking the place of Colorado and KState. The Pac 10 who usually beats up one another, did so in a bit more extreme fashion this year. BYU was weaker than in some of the recent past.
Arkansas and Nebraska and VA Tech and Colorado State are on the schedule in the future now. No one will ever convince me that USC does not strive to and achieve for the most part, in scheduling darn near the toughest schedule in the land, year in and year out. Who knows what those teams will be like when we get to them. I really hadn't even heard of VA Tech til Vick. My guess is that anyone who put money down that VA Tech would be a top 10 type team these past few years would have made a bunch on those odds 10+ years ago.
As we have seen, it would appear the strength of schedule component might play too big a part in the computers along with a couple of other components that appear to be getting tweaked.
I will state that I am a fan of the BCS overall, secondly, if the BCS is trying to make a system that will mimic the AP, they'll never achieve that. There will always be room for different outcomes as long as they use two different systems. If they want to match the AP, the only way to do so is to adopt the AP.
Regardless of what happens, don't expect the BCS and the AP to align themselves perfectly year in and year out. If they do, I say, one of them is obviously un-necessary.
Jan 6, 2004 7:08 AM
|Interesting to note though, is that had USC played K-State and Colorado, as they did in 2002, we would not be having this discussion. There's no question that beating those two teams would have put them ahead. Actually, beating K-State would have helped. I'm not sure Colorado would do a lot for their SOS this year.
It was really just unfortunate timing. But frankly, I like the split outcome...
|So much is just chance||No_sprint|
Jan 6, 2004 9:41 AM
|Supposedly if HI beat BS and/or ND beat Syr we wouldn't be having this discussion.|
|alice (tj) in wonderland||Starliner|
Jan 5, 2004 2:51 PM
|Computers are as biased as the programming which is fed into them. Which means they are not free of making the wrong choices or conclusions.
As for a strength-of-schedule comparison between LSU's league and USC's league, you're flat-ass wrong.
LSU's league (SEC West) was 15-10 in pre-bowl non-league games, for a .600 batting avg. Yet only a small portion of non-league games were against top conferences: Auburn losing to USC, LSU beating Pac-10 doormat Arizona; Arkansas beating Texas; Alabama losing to Oklahoma; MSU losing to Pac-10's Oregon. The rest of the games were against lesser leagues, and lesser teams within those leagues such as 1-11 LA-Monroe (three of the fifteen W's). The SEC West's second place team, Ole Miss, lost to Memphis and Texas Tech and beat LA Monroe and Arkansas State in their out-of-conference games... a paltry non-league record that makes one wonder how they made it to their 13th ranking .... an over-hyped QB perhaps?
The Pac-10 was 25-15 in pre-bowl non-conference games for a .625 average. Victories against top level non-league opponents included games against Auburn, Notre Dame, Michigan, Illinois (twice), Indiana, Colorado, North Carolina and Missisissippi State. Plus my alma mater Oregon State tagging the only blemish on 18th ranked Boise State's record. Losses against top level non-league teams included Notre Dame (twice), Kansas State, Iowa, Colorado, Oklahoma, LSU, Purdue and Ohio State.
i Pac-10 schools don't do a lot to schedule tough out-of-conference opponents to make up for it.
I'd have to say that with regard to "east-coast bias", you've offered proof of it.
|Look at teams, not reputations,||TJeanloz|
Jan 6, 2004 6:51 AM
|Look at who you've called "top level non-league opponents":
Auburn @ 8-5
Notre Dame @ 5-7
*Illinois @ 1-11
Michigan - I'll give you, was a great team this year.
Indiana @ 2-10
*North Carolina @ 2-10
Colorado @ 5-7 (which WON one of its games vs. the Pac10)
*Mississippi State @ 2-10
Combined record of "top level teams": 35-63 (and nearly 1/3 of those wins are by a single team).
* Denotes worst team in its respective conference.
I'm not saying that LSU played a better non-conference schedule than USC, because they didn't. I am saying they played a better schedule. LSU had 4 games against "top level" opponents in its own conference (Florida, Georgia twice, and Mississippi) - and these are all "top" opponents with winning records. The Pac-10, this year, simply was not as strong as the SEC. Thus, to make up for the deficiency in conference schedule strength, a Pac-10 team needed to have a significantly more challenging non-conference schedule. To be on par with an SEC or Big 12 team, that would mean playing 3 or 4 top 25 teams out of conference. The shame here is that USC TRIED to have a similar schedule - in many years, Notre Dame, Washington, and Auburn would have really helped their SOS - but this year, all of those teams were worse than normal.
But to the real question: are the computers biased? I'm very familiar with how one of the programs [Billingsly] is calculated, and geography doesn't come into play in the program. There isn't a "California" discount. There is a discount for losing games, which happens when you play in a very competitive conference (like the Pac-10). But other conferences are similarly competitive (most of the other BCS conferences). If you can give an explanation of how this "east coast bias" is inherent in the programming, I, as well as Roger, would love to hear it so that it can be eliminated.
The computers don't take poll ratings (or conference ratings, for that matter) into account - just wins, losses, and some other factors (home field, etc.). Where is this bias introduced?
|Split title is no title.||Alex-in-Evanston|
Jan 5, 2004 8:05 AM
|College football's system of voting on a national championship is ridiculous. If this method didn't already exist, who could imagine something as stupid as picking a champion by computer calculation? It's like winning a pageant.
I'd go for the NCAA basketball system. Selection committee picks the teams that make the tournament. From there it's winner take all.
|How many teams in the tournament?||Spoke Wrench|
Jan 5, 2004 2:15 PM
|And how would you pick 'em? Essentially, this year BCS had a two team tournament which many people felt was too few teams and many people disagreed with the selection process. Add a game and you can expand to four teams, but someday there will be a #5 seed that people will argue should have been #4 and the whole argument will start over again.
Frankly, other than who has to dust the crystal trophy I don't see that it makes much difference. I kind of liked the old way where fans of maybe four teams could all argue a case for why their school should be #1. Course I went to Iowa State so we had to learn to make do with academics.
Jan 6, 2004 6:41 AM
|That would take care of the layoff too, season ends after thanksgiving, give them a week off, and the championship is New Years Day. Teams picked by a selection committee, just like basketball. I think 8 is sufficient to make arguments about about the last team left off academic. Can you imagine the 9th seed taking it?
|yeah, that way they can give up the illusion of ...||dr hoo|
Jan 6, 2004 6:48 AM
|... taking final exams. After all, none of those kids in the top 8 programs have final papers and exams in december.|
|Not enough time to prepare,||TJeanloz|
Jan 6, 2004 7:04 AM
|Giving only a week between games, to play unknown opponents, would be almost impossible for head coaches to scheme for. This is a major difference between college and pro football. In the NFL, the similarity in talent level means that just about everybody runs the same basic schemes. But if you're in a college playoff, you can't reasonably prepare for USC one week (defending great down-field passing) only to face a Nebraska-style option offense the next week, only to face a Texas-Tech/Purdue style wide open offense the next week.
Your counterargument is going to be that teams do this in-season; after all, a Big 12 team might well face a Texas balanced offense, Nebraska option, and TTech wide open in the same season. But in the conference season, coaches know when these teams are coming to town more than a year in advance, and can plan accordingly. With the playoff, you're asking teams to make that adjustment with, at most, four days of practice. IMHO, that would result in some pretty bad football.
The other problem is the rest of the bowl games, which provide lesser teams (#9-58) with valuable practice time (three extra weeks). That's the equivilent of spring ball, and pretty important for up-and-coming programs.
|Dunno, but the liberal conspiracy was CLEAR!||dr hoo|
Jan 5, 2004 8:34 AM
|Who was #1 in both the AP and UPI polls? USC of course. But ABC insisted on billing the game as #1 vs. #2. Why would they do this? Did you think that it was just to boost numbers? It was, but who did they have on the pregame show?
Now, I instantly turned the channel to avoid contamination by what I am sure was his politically driven commentary. FOX sports never, ever would have any political messages on their sports casts, because they are fair and balanced. But the libby ABC puts on the ratfaced dumocRAT after twisting the facts to draw in a bigger audience.
It doesn't matter what system they use for the national champion, because the liberal media will conspire with the liberal, communist colleges, to turn it into an unAmerican propaganda festival. It's just more warping of the American spirit!
Just like the Rose parade. Don't get me started on THAT.
Jan 5, 2004 8:40 AM
|That Carville/ABC lib thing was simply disgusting.
USC, #9 baby.
Jan 5, 2004 8:45 AM
|the present system is only good for parlour conversation! The only way to determine a true national champion would be for all the bowl winners to play off, just as what happens in any other sports venue.
BTW, how one drags politics into this is simply beyond comprehension.
|oh, politics is in it all right.||dr hoo|
Jan 5, 2004 9:04 AM
|USC = private school.
LSU = socialist STATE school.
You figure it out.
|UPI? Is there a UPI poll? (nm)||94Nole|
Jan 5, 2004 9:06 AM
|there SHOULD be!||dr hoo|
Jan 5, 2004 9:14 AM
|Back in the good old days there was the writers poll (AP) and the coaches poll (UPI). Now we have a mess, and what got us there? Some silly idea of "progress" and using "science" to give us a formula to solve things. Are things better? Heck no!
dr. (longs for the comfort of the good old days) hoo
|interesting background and history here:||dr hoo|
Jan 6, 2004 7:26 AM
|College Football Could Have a Real Champion
By CHARLES E. YOUNG
The controversy over the pairings for last week's Bowl Championship Series once again raised the question of the most appropriate manner to stage postseason football for National Collegiate Athletic Association's Division I-A teams. Now in its sixth year, the BCS system, which in effect limits participation in the four most lucrative bowl games to members of the six strongest athletics conferences, has been plagued with debate since its inception. At issue are not just the shortcomings of the computerized rankings, but also revenue, control of college sports, and rising costs and abuses in college programs.
A bit of history might be useful for those engaged in the current discussion.
It is ironic that the new year marks the 10th anniversary of the appointment by the NCAA Board of Directors of an ad hoc special committee of presidents and chancellors, athletics directors, faculty representatives, students, sportswriters, and coaches who worked from January to June 1994 to study the bowl championship. As chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles, I served as chairman.
After reviewing volumes of data and conducting a number of wide-ranging discussions, the committee held a straw poll and voted, by an overwhelming majority, to support an eight-team, seven-game playoff system that would rely on six bowl games (we suggested the Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, and Citrus Bowls). Four would be played on January 1 at four bowl arenas to determine the pairings for two semifinal games to be played the following week in the two remaining bowls. The national championship would be played on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in mid-January in one of the major metropolitan stadiums. The eight participants each year would include the champions of five or six major conferences and two or three at-large selections.
The recommendation would also have eliminated the preseason games, which then were, and still are, allowed. Therefore, our playoff format would only have called for two institutions to play one more game than permitted at the time.
The intent of the proposal was to: (a) provide a playoff involving participants who would be required to win their conference championship to get there; (b) ensure the continuation of a strong, financially viable bowl structure (each of the designated bowls would be a "premier" game because each would play a major part in championship determination); (c) provide coordination of the postseason format by member NCAA Division I-A institutions, rather than by television companies and commercial sponsors; (d) provide increased revenue for a broad range of Division I-A programs within a controlled postseason environment; and (e) preserve the quality of the bowls and community interests they served.
Financially, the 1994 proposal would have partially used projected increases in revenue to indemnify the dollar returns earned by the participating bowl associations and to provide safety-net income to subsidize the limited number of pre-January 1 bowl games, in order to eliminate the need for teams having to "buy" their invitations to those games with commitments to purchase a certain number of tickets. It would also have provided for sharing some of the revenues with the nonparticipating Division I-A institutions and the other NCAA divisions.
The proposal was widely circulated and well received by the sports media, as well as by many in and out of intercollegiate athletics. But it did not survive. The 1994 committee was disbanded by the NCAA before making its formal recommendation because of a combination of factors: (a) a number of university presidents believed the playoff would result in the overcommercialization of postseason college football; (b) many college presidents argued that the playoff would substantially expand the number of games being played and, with postseason games spilling over into a new term,
|continued here:||dr hoo|
Jan 6, 2004 7:27 AM
|(b) many college presidents argued that the playoff would substantially expand the number of games being played and, with postseason games spilling over into a new term, would negatively affect academic performance; and (c) the commissioners of the leading Division I-A conferences wanted a playoff they could control, which (with more than $13-million at stake for each team in the main bowl games) would benefit their conferences financially. In short, it became clear that no playoff proposal would be accepted at that time.
Instead, a few years later, we got the BCS, which substitutes computer rankings for a playoff. It is, at the very least, no better than the playoff proposal in responding to the concerns that were raised against that idea and, in many cases, much worse. Additionally, it does not produce a widely accepted national champion.
With regard to the concern about overcommercialization, I would merely point to what has happened to the commercialization of the bowls, the games, and the national championship under the BCS structure. Will the so-called national championship be played in the Sugar Bowl, or is it the Nokia Sugar Bowl? (Some of the bowls carry only the name of the sponsor, for instance, the GMAC Bowl.) Who controls the stadium ads, which are usually more visible than the teams on the fields? How many more commercial timeouts and minutes of advertising are there now than 10 years ago? The final straw, in my mind, is the fact that the National Championship Trophy is now named for a commercial sponsor selected each year by the network televising the bowl games. Thus the Sears National Championship Trophy of 2002 became the Circuit City National Championship Trophy of 2003 and now the ADT National Championship Trophy, which the security-services company will sponsor for three years.
By contrast, "March Madness," the basketball-championship tournament, is run by the NCAA, which controls arena advertisements, exercises substantial influence over on-the-air advertising, and has generally played down the commercial character of an enormously popular event.
As to the added-games issue, at last count there are now 28 postseason bowls, compared with 19 in the pre-BSC era. There are now 18 more institutions playing an additional game than there were when our committee was disbanded. Don't those constitute extra games? What about the extension of the season from 11 to 12 games, which occurred this year? Presumably that was because of a quirk in the calendar but, with the added income that the change has produced, isn't it likely that the extension will become permanent?
There is no response, however, to the last basis of opposition to the playoff proposal -- control of postseason football and the revenue that comes with it. The Big Six commissioners got what they wanted and we, the colleges and the public, are stuck with it.
Much has changed since 1994. One television company (ABC/ESPN) now holds the television rights to all but three of the 28 bowl games, yet there is no organized negotiation on behalf of the bowl-game associations, except for the four BCS games. The major commercial-sponsorship entitlements of the four BCS games are now primarily controlled by ABC and not by the bowl associations or the institutions involved.
Further, the lack of a requirement for the networks to telecast the bowl associations' accompanying parades has led to the cancellation of the Orange Bowl Parade altogether and the diminution of the Fiesta Bowl Parade to a lower-tier cable station. Even the venerable Tournament of Roses Parade, an American tradition and a favorite for decades on New Year's morning, has found itself much diminished.
Recently, open arguments between "BCS" and "non-BCS" institutions, conducted by Division I-A presidents and chancellors over issues of control, financing, and bowl appearances, have resulted in Congressional hearings and threats of antitrust litigation or Congressional controls on colle
|finsihed here:||dr hoo|
Jan 6, 2004 7:28 AM
|Recently, open arguments between "BCS" and "non-BCS" institutions, conducted by Division I-A presidents and chancellors over issues of control, financing, and bowl appearances, have resulted in Congressional hearings and threats of antitrust litigation or Congressional controls on college sports. The rising costs of big-time intercollegiate athletics, the mounting number of academic scandals making headlines, and the overcommercialization associated, in particular, with college football have all stirred up a new round of critiques of college athletics, led by the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.
With so many ills needing to be treated, some people will say the question of postseason football is not high on the list of priorities. One of my dear friends, a former president of two different universities, recently asked me, "Why do we want a champion, anyway?" The fact is, there will be a champion selected. That being the case, let's make the process the best it can be, especially if it can result in resolving some other problems in college sports. A playoff system could be used to reduce the number of games, rein in commercialization, and help distribute the income of postseason football more fairly.
Those of us involved in the 1994 NCAA committee were aware that our proposal might fall into the category of a "good idea whose time has not yet come." Others may still question whether it was a good idea at all. But, as the debate about the structure of the Division I-A postseason continues, it might be useful to re-examine how such a proposal might benefit educational institutions, college athletes, and fans alike. Has its time come?
I think so.
Charles E. Young served as chancellor of the University of California at Los Angeles from 1968 to 1997 and just retired as president of the University of Florida. He is a member of the current Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics and was a member of the two previous Knight commissions.
Section: The Chronicle Review
Volume 50, Issue 18, Page B16