The NCAA Basketball Tournament Expansion Debate – Enough is Enough!

January 14, 2010

Read the debate intro and the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless about whether or not the NCAA Basketball Tournament should expand.



Expanding the NCAA basketball national tournament would serve no purpose other than to water down the talent with teams that have no business being there in the first place.

The March Madness tournament exists to determine a national champion. To my knowledge, there has never been a question at the conclusion of the March Madness Tournament as to who the “real” national champion is. To the contrary, the tournament already provides a definitive process where the champion can be crowned with no question as to the team’s legitimacy.

Want proof? Take on this little Sports Debates Challenge – Try to genuinely convince just ONE person that Nicholls State SHOULD have been invited to the March Madness tournament last year, that they were LEGITIMATELY worthy of consideration as one of the best teams in the country, and that they would have beaten North Carolina in the tournament if they squared off. I’ll even get you started with a little help – Nicholls State won 20 games last year, but Wisconsin and Arizona only won 19 games each, yet both the Badgers AND the Wildcats received at-large bids.

Any luck? I didn’t think so!

The reason you cannot win that argument is because the notion that a school like Nicholls State deserved to be in the national tournament last year is absurd. Yet, Nicholls State is precisely the caliber of team that would be added to the national tournament if the pool of competitors is expanded.

Does that mean that schools like Nicholls State should automatically be excluded from the national championship tournament? Of course not! Every single one of the 347 teams that participate in NCAA Division I basketball ALREADY has an opportunity to compete for the national championship. That’s right, unlike college football, where some schools can literally play through a perfect season and STILL be excluded from consideration for a national championship opportunity, EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL from Air Force to Youngstown State (there are no schools that start with ‘Z’) in Division I college basketball has a real and legitimate opportunity to play for the national championship – win and you’re in!

Each of the 33 conferences in Division I are awarded an automatic bid into the NCAA tournament, equaling 33 invitations which are given to the schools that win conference championships. If Nicholls State won the Southland Conference Tournament last year, they WOULD have been invited to the dance.

That leaves 32 additional ‘At-Large’ invitations which are awarded to those 32 teams that did not win a conference tournament, but still performed well enough to have earned an opportunity for a ‘second chance’ at the crown.

Those 65 teams are then ranked from 1-65, and accordingly seeded into four different brackets. That means that the teams which earned a ranking from 61-65 are the ‘worst’ teams in the tournament, and are subsequently placed as the 16th seeds in their respective brackets (with the 64th and 65th ranked teams first meeting in a play-in game).

Fact: No team that has been ranked as a 16th seed has EVER won a game in the national basketball tournament!

If the “worst” teams (ranked 61 through 65) currently participating in the tournament have NEVER won a game, how could it happen with the teams ranked from 66 through 96?!

Populating that 66-96 range would be a combination of Mid-Major programs that failed to win any big games (including their own conference tournament, as well as games against Major conference members), and the last place teams of Major conferences who already had AMPLE opportunity to prove their worth against those top programs, but failed in the attempt. Those teams had their chance to prove they were worthy of consideration, and were unable to meet the task.

Their performances simply do not warrant any consideration for the tournament. Nicholls State, a Mid-Major, could not even cut it among the ranks of McNeese State and Texas A&M Corpus Christi. Another example is the Cincinnati Bearcats, a team that finished 2009 with a 10th place finish in the Big East thanks to an 8-10 conference record, and an 18-14 overall record. The Bearcats lost to teams such as Louisville, Pitt, Villanova, Connecticut, and Marquette, along with a loss to DePaul in the first round of the Big East Tournament. Do the Bearcats really belong in the national tournament competing AGAIN against many of those exact same teams?

The system today is fair, and it works. The schools that win their conference championships will go on to compete on the national stage along with those programs that proved throughout the rigorous regular season that they, too, are among the best in the nation. Although there will always be four or five “snubbed” schools that were also worthy of consideration, opening the floodgates to 33 additional teams in order to allow those few snubs into the tournament is not the answer.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The NCAA Basketball Tournament Expansion Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate – Ben Sheets Calling for Larry Rothschild

January 13, 2010

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about which still unsigned player is the best remaining on the hot stove in major league baseball.



It may be hard to believe, but there are still over 100 well (enough) known major league baseball players that still do not know what color hats they will wear this Spring. For a complete list, check out one of my favorite websites, mlbtraderumors.com. There is a smattering of big names in the list, too. Jim Thome, Jason Giambi, Hank Blalock, Jermaine Dye, Brian Giles, Johnny Damon, Randy Winn, Miguel Tejada, Orlando Hudson, and the list goes on for a while. My guess is that many if not all of these players will be in a camp somewhere on March 1st.

In identifying the one, true, best unsigned talent still simmering on the hot stove, I nearly unveiled first baseman/right fielder/catcher Ryan Garko. Garko, a former member of the Cleveland Indians and San Francisco Giants (and Stanford grad), is no slouch and was never really included by the Eric Wedge administration in Cleveland. The truth is, the righty can flat out hit with a career .279 batting average in five seasons. The more consistent playing time Garko received, the better his numbers were (including a .314 batting average in the postseason). Garko compares favorably to players like Conor Jackson and Randell Simon, yet seems to be forgotten. More than anything, he is at least a good platoon player with a lifetime .308 batting average against left-handed pitching.

Ultimately I chose to forgo Garko mostly because my hunch is that pitching is largely ignored right now – especially Ben Sheets.

Sheets did not play in 2009 in order to have enough healing time after surgery for a torn flexor tendon in his pitching arm. Sheets claims to be back to full health and ready for a big comeback in 2010. I believe him.

It seems strange, but many have forgotten just how good of a pitcher Ben Sheets is. He finished 2004 with a 2.70 ERA, has a career ERA of 3.72. He is always around the National League lead in strikeouts, usually over 150 a season when healthy. In 2008, his supposed last healthy season, Sheets still pitched 198.1 innings with three shutouts. He has pitched in four all-star games.

Sheets should be a priority signing for any team that wants to win in October. He has a career 3.46 ERA in September and October, making him a reliable pitcher down the stretch.

The Chicago Cubs are in the process of remaking their pitching staff. Carlos Zambrano is still the centerpiece with Ted Lilly and Ryan Dempster starting in the number two and three spots respectively. Yup, the Cubs must upgrade. Oh, and Carlos Silva is currently slotted to start fourth. Yikes. Again, the Cubs need a major pitching staff upgrade without breaking the bank, and Ben Sheets fits the bill.

The main knock against Sheets was his durability, never his stuff or stamina. Peculiar injuries (which the Cubs majored in during college) are common and dealt with reasonably in Chicago. Chicago Cubs pitching coach Larry Rothschild has gained a great deal of experience working with pitchers like Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, and Rich Harden. He understands when a player should be pushed, and when a player must shut it down. Rothschild also coaches to strike outs, a real strength for Ben Sheets.

Rothschild is also coming off a season where he had to nurse Rich Harden a bit, with more days between starts to preserve health. Sheets may need that type of attention. And, he may perform best with it. For his career, Sheets is 21-17 and five days rest and 10-8 with a 3.20 ERA on six days rest.

Bottom line, Rothschild is the right pitching coach for Sheets right now. The Cubs are the right team for him, since Sheets pitched within the division and has intimate knowledge of the hitters in baseball’s biggest division. Plus, there is mutual interest.

The asking price from the Sheets camp is $10M-$12M for two years. It may seem steep, but there is little reason to believe he is unable to deliver. I am guessing the final deal will have a few incentives layered into it.

I think the Cubs begin Spring training with Ben Sheets. They may not win the division, but they will be a better team with Sheets on staff.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate – The Damon Cometh

January 13, 2010

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek about which still unsigned player is the best remaining on the hot stove in major league baseball.



Johnny Damon is the best remaining free agent on the market. Yes, he is old. Yes, he is overpriced. And yes, he displays all the defense of an awkward 12-year-old girl. But the guy can still hit. While he is not a threat to lead any of the categories of baseball’s Triple Crown (homeruns, runs batted in, and batting average), he is going to produce at a high level offensively across the board. Last year his line looked like this:

AB R H HR RBI SB AVG OBP SLG
550 107 155 24 82 12 .282 .365 .489

Johnny boasted three year bests in runs, doubles, homeruns, and walks. His stolen bases were down last year, but that can be explained by his move to batting in the number two spot behind Derek Jeter, whose stolen base totals rose as the Yankees 2009 leadoff batter. While stats alone make Damon a majorly sought-after commodity, it is his intangibles at the plate that make Johnny Damon so darn good. He is a patient hitter. He sees a lot of balls before swinging, which not only helps him but also allows his whole team to see what pitches the pitcher has in his arsenal. Damon is an experienced batter that has proven he can produce under pressure. Johnny has been successful in two of the biggest media markets in baseball – Boston and New York, and he has had some clutch at bats in serious big game situations. Yankee fans remember the clutch hits he had against the Yankees (i.e. the 2004 ALCS) and for the Yankees (i.e. the 2009 World Series).

Adding to Johnny Damon’s value on the free agent market is the fact that he is pretty freakin’ cool. Whether he is rocking excellent facial hair or an awesome new hairdo, he does it with style. He is at ease in front of the TV camera. He proved that, during his guest hosting appearance on popular wrestling program, WWE Raw, where he cut promos in the ring, made matchups, and even acting in a skit that had him kissing 85-year-old female wrestler Mae Young. And if you really want to talk about cool, how about hanging out with godfather of rap, Snoop Dogg? Johnny Damon hung with Snoop D-O-Double-Dizzle at a charity event, where he beat Snoop in a game of Madden. Prior to the game Damon made a bet with Snoop that if he won then Snoop would have to perform at his daughter’s birthday party one day, also winning Damon extra cool points for being an awesome dad. What in the world does this have to do with his status as a free agent, you ask? Well… a lot. Every bit of popularity an athlete creates for themselves drives up their marketability, and in turn the marketability of that player’s team. Johnny Damon and his agent Beelzebub… I mean Scott Boras… knows that his ability to draw fans and TV ratings will increase his value at the negotiating table. (So take that middle school guidance counselor. Being cool does count for something after all.)

In spite of the attention he will get after the signing of top tier hitters like Matt Holiday and Jason Bay, Johnny’s Damon’s options are beginning to narrow because of his current salary and multi-year contract requests. His poor arm and shrinking range make him a defensive liability, so that knocks out most national league teams looking for a hitter, such as the Mets and Giants. He will come with a hefty price tag, so small market and price conscientious teams, like the Athletics, are out. This pretty much leaves big market AL teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Angels as options. But, theAngels have already locked up a cheaper alternative in free agent and World Series MVP, Hideki Matsui. I really do not see Johnny going back to Bean Town, so in my opinion he might as well get comfortable in the Bronx, at least for a few more years. But who knows? Damon shocked the world before when he left the Red Sox for the Yankees, he could make waves again by signing on with a team ready to make a World Series run. The fact remains Damon is a veteran piece of the puzzle for any serious postseason contender, and an entertaining character to boot.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate – A Proven MLB Slugger Is Still Available

January 13, 2010

Read the arguments from Babe Ruthless and Sports Geek about which still unsigned player is the best remaining on the hot stove in major league baseball.



It has been a heavy sports news week so far, with Mark McGwire’s admission that he took steroids, Pete Carroll leaving USC, and then quickly being replaced by Lane Kiffin. Obviously, baseball is taking a back seat right now, as it usually does in January. However, The Sports Debates is going to take a look at what’s left of the free agency list. A quick look over the list leads me to believe that Jermaine Dye is the best player left on the market.

Jermaine Dye is a proven MLB slugger. His career statistics are solid, with 325 home runs. He has five consecutive seasons with 25 or more home runs. Last season was somewhat of a down one for him, as he had an awful second half (.179 average with six home runs), but he still finished hitting .251 with 27 home runs. He is, perhaps, just passed his prime, as he will be 36 years old on opening day. But that does not mean he is not a key addition to several teams out there.

Three teams appear to be a good fit for Dye, and all for different reasons. Those teams are the New York Yankees, the Atlanta Braves, and the San Francisco Giants.

Dye’s price is quickly dropping as the Spring training draws nearer (not that finances even come into the equation with the Yankees). The Yankees, despite the acquisition of Curtis Granderson, still could use another outfielder with the likely departure of Johnny Damon. Some may say Dye is awful in the outfield, but to answer that, I simply ask, “How good of an outfielder was Damon?” Dye’s bat would likely continue to have some pop in hitter friendly Yankee Stadium. Of course, he could always be a designated hitter, too.

Some of you may remember that Dye was actually drafted by the Atlanta Braves back in 1993. Unfortunately, he came up with another young Braves outfielder named Andruw Jones, and the Braves decided to go with him. He has always been kept in high regard by the Braves. Atlanta possibly has an open spot in right field, if only for a year, since hot prospect Jason Heyward is on the way up. That would give the lineup a big bat it sorely needs, but it would be a right-handed bat. As it is, the Braves lineup is already full of right-handers.

Another destination is possibly San Francisco. Dye was born in California and the people in the Bay area are quite familiar with him, with Dye having played in Oakland from 2001-2004. The Giants obviously need some punch in the lineup. They have added Mark DeRosa, but looking at the depth chart, it appears the team still needs another bat. The interest in Dye by the Giants possibly depends on what they decide to do at first base. If they put Pablo “Kung Fu Panda” Sandoval at third and not first, DeRosa likely moves to the outfield and there is possibly not a spot for Dye.

Wherever he goes, Dye will be aiming to prove that he still has something left. There’s no doubt he still has pop in his bat. It is a low risk, high reward opportunity for some lucky team, and it is a chance one team is going to be glad to take.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Unsigned On The Hot Stove Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate – Shadow of a Doubt Leaves Shroud of Uncertainty Around Champion

January 13, 2010

Read the debate intro and the arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the BCS national championship game truly answered the question “what is the best team in college football?”



This is likely a debate that can be approached on an annual basis (though we will not do that). Since we are quickly approaching the completion of our first year of operation, it makes sense to discuss the validity of the BCS national title game.

On the surface, the debate appears uncomplicated. There is almost universal hate for the BCS (though not from me); therefore any attempt by the BCS to declare any definitive outcome to a season is hogwash. However, to objectively rule in this debate it is vital to sift through inherent bias and adjudicate if the BCS title game did its job.

The game certainly featured top programs, as Babe Ruthless argued. While judging the quality of the competition in retrospect is as unwise as it is off limits, it is fair to argue that the tumult around the Cincinnati program prevents the legitimacy of their argument to play in the title game entering into the BCS bowl season.

However, this season, more than ever before, fans can make a legitimate argument for a Plus One BCS game scenario. Two BCS games, including the national title, featured two undefeated teams. It seems obvious and logical.

And, as Loyal Homer points out, that current BCS scenario does create a shadow of a doubt. Boise State did not play the most arduous schedule in the land, but neither did Texas (especially considering those non-conference games… yikes). While Alabama earned its right to play in the game, perhaps Texas’ inclusion in the game is debatable. After all, traditionally non-BCS affiliated schools have had success on a BCS stage before. Utah beat Alabama in the Sugar Bowl after the 2007 season and Boise State beat Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl after the 2006 regular season.

Perhaps a fundamental level of miscommunication is as the heart of the BCS national title game. Consider the three primary stakeholders – fans, teams, and the BCS. Fans want closure and for a winner to be determined without any doubt. Teams want to play on a national stage and take the payday. The BCS wants a good game and plenty of attention with a national audience. The current system plays to the needs of teams and the BCS, and leaves fans out in the cold.

The overriding implication in all of this is that the BCS Championship game must determine the best team in the country. To me, it is a heavily hyped great game that much of the country enjoys. For it to be a true national title game, another system would be necessary.

Adjustments to the current approach are extremely difficult due to the complexity and size of the NCAA FBS, essentially forbidding a playoff system bereft of some human bias. It is impossible for every good team from every good conference to get a shot to play one another. Not only would that approach devalue the regular season, it would also shorten the regular season (the time where all of the money is made) to make room for all of the games necessary.

College football is not professional football by any measure. In professional ranks it is simple to watch the outcome of a game on Sunday, then prepare game film, practice, etc. for the next unanticipated opponent. The realities of college – combined with the necessity of fluid game preparation – do not allow for 100 percent focus on football by all parties involved. A playoff system would mandate that, and inch college even closer to the professional ranks.

While I am entertained by Babe Ruthless’ argument that building a college football playoff system is like building a robot butler, Loyal Homer wins this debate because there is a shadow of a doubt about what the best team is in college football. But, make no mistake – college football is not changing any time soon. Even with an act of Congress.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate – Did the Game Settle College Football’s Best?

January 12, 2010

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the BCS national championship game truly answered the question “what is the best team in college football?”



When it was originally conceived in the late 1990s, the BCS was supposed to settle, without much disagreement, which team was the best in college football at the end of a season. The original attempt to answer the question refused to unsettle the bowl system. Years later a BCS National Championship Game was added to the schedule. The game was designed to circumvent conference bowl tie-ins, allow successful conferences to have the opportunity to allow more than one team make it to the BCS, and establish a game to definitely determine which team is college football’s best year in and year out.

Obviously, disagreement persists about how effective the BCS is at determining the sport’s best team on a yearly basis.

Some seasons the BCS appeared to create the game comparing college football’s two best teams. However, it seems just as many seasons were unable to deliver a definitive champion.

This season was no exception from controversy in the BCS championship game matchup. While Alabama – or any team that wins the SEC according to some – was clearly deserving of a shot, and Texas – despite playing an extremely soft schedule – seemed to deserve a shot, an argument can also be made for Texas Christian. TCU finished the season undefeated, but from a lesser known conference in the Mountain West. Likewise, Boise State finished its season undefeated and can also understandably make an argument for a shot at the national title.

Cincinnati also came into the BCS bowl season undefeated, but the uncertainty surrounding the team and the coaching situation prevented the Bearcats from realistically entering the conversation.

In short, five undefeated teams seem to have had a legitimate shot at playing in the national title game. At the season’s conclusion now, there are still two unbeaten teams atop the polls. Therefore, it is fair to ask – and for The Sports Debate to answer – Did the 2009 BCS National Championship game really determine what the best college football team is at the end of the season.

Babe Ruthless will argue the game did determine the best team in college football and that the “haves” in the sports have for a reason. Loyal Homer will argue that the game did not do its job this season due to the multiple unbeaten teams at the end of the season and the sordid history of the game.

While the entire history of the BCS is relevant in this debate as evidence, concentrate the primary elements of each argument on the 2009 BCS season and championship game. If you are able to provide ample evidence to support your argument I guarantee only one undefeated debater is left standing tomorrow.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate, The 2009 College Football National Championship Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate – BCS Champs Without A Doubt

January 12, 2010

Read the debate intro and the argument from Loyal Homer about whether or not the BCS national championship game truly answered the question “what is the best team in college football?”



The 2010 BCS National Championship game definitively decided what the best team in all of college football was this season – Alabama. I am sure that many may take issue with the previous statement, but it is true. In fact, the whole purpose of the BCS is to identify the best team in the college football and this year, it did exactly that.

Most people think of the BCS as an evil or incompetent group that arbitrarily makes bowl matchups, but this can not be further from the truth. First of all, the BCS is not a who, it is a what. It is a unique event. A series of bowl games among the top ranked teams in the nation that ultimately crowns the best team in all of college football. While the bowl system does not necessarily follow a stratified hierarchy and certainly not a playoff system, it is the proven system America has used to select its national champ.

Criticism of the BCS is everywhere. Even the President Barrack Obama has gotten in on the action, calling for a playoff system. Sure a playoff system would be fun, but it just does not seem plausible or realistic. It reminds me a lot of trying to build a robot butler. It would be awesome if you could do it but it would cost a fortune, take entirely too long to do it right, and someone would probably end up getting hurt. As weird as my example is, it is accurate. A playoff system would rob schools of the money brought in by the current bowl system. It would make the college football season way too long. And the extra wear and tear on the collegiate athletes’ bodies would become even more apparent by adding a few more games to the season. While the BCS system is not perfect, it is working.

This year’s BCS Championship game pitted undefeated Alabama (#1) against undefeated Texas (#2). There were several other unbeaten top ranked schools – Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State – but the BCS got this one right. A person could get lost trying to figure out all the weird six degrees of separation kind of ways Alabama and Texas deserved to play each other (e.g. Alabama beat Florida(#5), who beat LSU (#12), who beat Georgia and so on an so forth), but in the end the national championship matchup just made the most sense. The BCS takes a lot into consideration when determining their rankings – including the USA Today Coaches Poll, the Harris Interactive College Football Poll and an average of six computer rankings. I am happy that ‘Bama was not pitted against the porous defense of the Brian Kelly-less Cincinnati Bearcats (#3), or that Texas was not matched up against fellow unbeaten TCU (#4). Neither of these matchups felt right, and the way their BCS bowls turned out, I do not think TCU or Cincinnati would have mustered a win if they were ranked higher. The Alabama-Texas matchup was meant to be.

So now that I have established the fact that the championship game matched the right teams, I think we should take a look at the actual game itself. The Crimson Tide won this game in their typical “unorthodox” but effective style. Alabama did not play perfect football but they made the plays they had to in order to win the game. Despite special teams mistakes early on, the team built an early lead and kept the Longhorns from rallying to win. As for determining who the best team ultimately was some Texas fans will cry foul since Colt McCoy had to watch from the sidelines. They will argue that it would have been different if he was in the game, and who knows they might be right. But injuries are a part of football. The unpredictable nature of the sport is one of the reasons we play the game. Things do not always turn out the way teams plan, but they do always turn out the way they are supposed to happen.

This year’s BCS national title matchup was not the most technically sound or even pretty game played all year, but it was a matchup of the top two teams that resulted in a clear cut winner. Likewise, the championship certainly was not the most memorable national title game of all time, but it brought the ultimate sense of finality that the season needed. Alabama emerged victorious and America has a champion… at least till next season.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate – Maybe… but Maybe Not

January 12, 2010

Read the debate intro and the argument from Babe Ruthless about whether or not the BCS national championship game truly answered the question “what is the best team in college football?”



Many of you, approximately 29 million of you, watched last Thursday’s BCS national championship game. That is considerably more than the amount that watches Conan O’Brien on a nightly basis! It seems we all saw Alabama score a victory over a Colt McCoy-less Texas Longhorns team. Not to take anything away from the Crimson Tide, but they went through arguably the toughest conference unscathed and then beat the best the Big XII had to offer. But to say with 100 percent certainty that the BCS championship declared the best team is just an incorrect statement.

As Sports Geek point out in the intro, five teams completed the regular season with a zero in the loss column (Alabama, Texas, Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise State). Obviously, at least two of those teams were going to fall off the list since Alabama played Texas and TCU played Boise State. Florida knocked the Bearcats from the ranks of the unbeaten (though I feel that could have been a much closer game if Brian Kelly was still the head coach at Cincinnati).

It can be argued all day long that Alabama, an SEC powerhouse, would be too much for Boise State. Maybe Bama would roll… but maybe not. There is some doubt, even if it is a small amount. Boise State can make the claim that it finished the season undefeated. That is a tremendous accomplishment and no one can ever take that away from the players and coaches. But the Bronco Nation may always wonder if they could have defeated the Crimson Tide. Unfortauntely, the dispute from Bronco Nation was not settled on the field because the current system does not allow it.

This really is not an argument about a playoff proposal, but if you were to put those five teams into some form of playoff, would Alabama still come out on top? Maybe, but maybe not!

Let’s compare it to the NFL playoffs. Indianapolis and New Orleans have gone into the playoffs as the number one seed in their respective conferences. On paper, they are the best teams due to their record. However, at the beginning of the playoffs there were ten other teams (six after this past weekend’s games) chasing the same thing the Colts and Saints are chasing. What if the Colts played the Saints because of their records in the regular season?

Let’s face it, the odds are against the Saints and Colts both making it to the Super Bowl. Maybe another team (Chargers, Ravens, Cowboys, etc.) gets hot and makes a run and knocks one of the top teams off. The best team does not always win the Super Bowl since any team can get hot at the right time. But, that is not really a question posed by fans after the Super Bowl. Did you hear these types of discussions after the Super Bowl two years ago, when the Giants defeated the previously undefeated Patriots thanks to a late touchdown? No, I do not recall any such conversation. However, there is some talk that maybe… just maybe… Alabama was not the best team in college football.

Chances are that Alabama would have rolled through the Broncos of Boise State if they played. But much like a defense attorney tries to do when representing his/her client, I am trying to convince you that it is not certain that they would have won. There is doubt. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Well, how about the phrase “a team is not the best team until they prove they are the best team.” In this case, nothing has been proven to declare, Alabama, without a shadow of doubt, the best team in the land.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The 2009 BCS National Championship Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Best 2009 Bowl Season Debate – Mountain West Nears the Top of the Peak

January 11, 2010

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about which conference had the best bowl season in 2009.



Like it or hate it, the bowl season is excellent for fans trying to identify the best major college football conference. Fans get the chance to see favorite schools play against other favorites for conference supremacy. While the national championship game rightfully receives the majority of attention from the media, the constant drumbeat of interest surrounding which conference features the best teams is the perfect backdrop for the season’s conclusion. With the bowl system, college football fans are able to identify the sport’s best team and its best conference.

It was nice to sit back, relax, and watch the 2009-2010 bowl season go off script. The SEC was supposed to be the clear, runaway, best conference college football had to offer this season, followed closely by the Big XII. Instead, while the SEC laid claim to college football’s best team in Alabama this season, it proved top heavy and uneven with a final bowl record of 6-4. The Big XII finished 4-3. Therefore, neither of the best conferences followed through on expectations this bowl season. The Pac-10, the sleeper for many “experts,” finished just 2-5.

No conference had a better winning percentage – or more pressure – than the Mountain West Conference in 2009-2010. Despite enormous expectations, the Mountain West delivered like no other conference.

The Games

  • Wyoming 35 – Fresno State 28
  • BYU 44 – Oregon State 20
  • Utah 37 – California 27
  • Air Force 47 – Houston 20
  • Boise State 17 – Texas Christian 10

The Mountain West finished the bowl season, unsurprisingly, 4-1 – that’s an .800 winning percentage. That impressive list mixes bowl wins against some of the best programs from the Pac-10, which the conference handled with a perfect 2-0 record.

The one blemish on the conference’s record was a mistake-riddled performance in the league’s most highly anticipated game. Many believed that TCU deserved a shot at the national title game, and therefore needed to show a great deal against Boise State in the MWC’s lone BCS appearance. TCU did not win, but the game was still a good thing for the MWC because Boise State’s victory proved the value of putting the best from so-called mid major conferences into the conversation for the national championship game. Even in losing the conference won.

The MWC is in the process of vying for the all-important automatic BCS bid. Over the course of the next two seasons the conference will complete a four season long process of intense BCS scrutiny about the merits of adding the conference as a seventh automatic BCS team, probably with a Fiesta Bowl tie-in. Therefore, no conference has more demanded of it, or expected from it, than the MWC. The stakes are persistently high, but the conference does not crack or fold. Instead, it thrives and continues to prove it belongs. In the ultimate example of “the rich get richer” design to sports culture, the more the teams win, the easier it is to attract top coaching and athletic talent. I believe the conference will ultimately land that automatic bid, and all of college football will be better off for it. This postseason will be remembered as a crucial one for the entire conference.

It is time for the media to stop noting the impressive MWC, and start voting. Time after time the football programs in the conference are publically lauded beneath the media spotlight, but dismissed as mid-majors in the back-room votes. The more competition the sport has, the more popular it will become nationwide. Truly, what is good for the Mountain West is good for college football, the BCS, and the bowl system. Voters must demonstrate awareness of that fact.

The Mountain West Conference needed and earned the best outcome of the bowl season in 2009. Some conferences were seeking sustainability or respect or preservation. The Mountain West was seeking a measure of all three, giving it the best performance of the 2009 bowl season.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best 2009 Bowl Season Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Best 2009 Bowl Season Debate – Big Ten Redemption

January 11, 2010

Read the arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek about which conference had the best bowl season in 2009.



I am shocked that college football is over (I miss it already)!

With the end of the college football season, though, comes the final bit of analysis to close out 2009 where we must determine which teams and which conferences had the most success during the bowl season. There were several conferences which put forth outstanding results this year, including the WAC (proving with yet another BCS victory that they can hang with the big boys), the Mountain West (4-1 overall record) and the Big East (4-2 overall), and the SEC (winning two BCS games, including a fourth consecutive national championship).

However, only one conference defied all expectations, and won ALL of its biggest games, on the biggest stages, against the toughest opponents – The Big Ten!

During the 2009-2010 bowl season, the Big Ten was one of only two conferences (along with the ACC) in which every one of its opponents came from another BCS-Conference. The Pac-10, Big XII, SEC, and Big East, contrarily, each had at least one game scheduled against a non-BCS school from the Sun-Belt or MAC, for example. In addition, four of the Big Ten matchups came against higher ranked opponents, all of whom were ranked in the top-15, and two of which were BCS games.

With all due respect to the Mountain West’s impressive bowl record of 4-1, the conference accomplished that record by playing the WAC (two games), Conference-USA (one game), and Pac-10 (two games). Its teams did not face any teams from the Big East, SEC, Big XII, Big Ten, or the ACC. Likewise, the Big East had a record of 4-2, but those games were played against Conference-USA (one game), the MAC (one game), the ACC (two games against one of the WEAKEST BCS conferences), and the SEC (two games). In addition, only two each of the Mountain West and Big East opponents were ranked among the top-25 teams in the nation.

BCS matchups also carry additional weight, because they feature the best that each conference has to offer. Winning games against unranked MAC opponents is not quite the same as winning games against ranked opponents from the SEC or Big Ten. Consequently, BCS victories carry more weight because they earn more credit for the conference.

Of the five BCS matchups, only one game was won by a conference OTHER than the SEC (Florida in the Sugar Bowl and Alabama in the National Championship) or the Big Ten (Ohio State in the Rose Bowl and Iowa in the Orange Bowl). With those results it is difficult to argue that the Mountain West or Big East had the best bowl performances, despite their impressive overall bowl records, because their premier teams lost on the biggest stage against the other premier teams in college football. In fact, the Big East lost its BCS game AGAINST the SEC. Likewise, the ACC, Pac-10, and Big XII also lost BCS games.

Because the SEC and Big Ten both won two BCS bowl games, is it logical to move down the hierarchy of remaining bowl games, beginning with how each conference performed against each other, before deciding the best performance as a conference overall.

There were two bowl games which pitted the SEC against the Big Ten, and each conference won one game. However, the Big Ten victory came in the Capital One Bowl (where #13 Penn State defeated #12 LSU) while the SEC victory came in the Outback Bowl (where unranked Auburn needed overtime to squeak past unranked Northwestern, which has not won a bowl game in 60 years). In the only game between a ranked SEC team and a ranked Big Ten team, it was the Big Ten that emerged victorious.

Last, the Big Ten went 4-0 against ranked opponents in the bowl season, while the SEC went 3-2 against ranked opponents, including that loss to the Big Ten. In each of those games against ranked opposition, the Big Ten was expected to lose. Yet, in each of those games the Big Ten defied the odds and came away victorious. With a win against #15 Miami (ACC), in addition to the aforementioned victories over #12 LSU (SEC), #9 Georgia Tech (ACC), and #7 Oregon (Pac-10), the Big Ten had a perfect record against four of the best teams in the country!

The Big Ten has been much maligned of late for struggling in bowl games. Although the criticism has been warranted in previous seasons, it was not the case in 2009-2010. Instead, the Big Ten faced arguably the toughest bowl schedule in the country, walking away with not just a winning record, but an UNDEFEATED record against ranked opponents, two BCS wins, and a whole lot more respect than it had entering the bowls season.

Congratulations to the Ohio State Buckeyes, Iowa Hawkeyes, Penn State Nittany Lions, and Wisconsin Badgers for bringing victory (and restoring pride) to the best conference in college football!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best 2009 Bowl Season Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.