Post by elp525 on Nov 18, 2008 5:40:10 GMT -5
November 18, 2008
MORGANTOWN - Cleaning out a crowded notebook and a cluttered mind while wondering if Barack Obama's stance on a college football playoff might have changed a handful of votes (not that it would have mattered one way or another):
Now, not to paint with too wide a brush here, but it's been my experience that college football coaches tend toward conservatism and Republicanism. Still, methinks even those in that majority may have perked up when Obama said this to 60 Minutes in an interview broadcast Sunday night:
"I don't know any serious fan of college football that disagrees with me on this,'' Obama said after laying out a rather simplistic plan for a playoff. "So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do.''
Well, it's certainly the right thing for someone to do. A president? Hey, if he's got the time, more power to him. And even if he doesn't have the time, how long does it take to order a handful of college presidents and athletic directors into a room and tell them they get no food or water until they come out with a workable plan?
It's not like there's no precedent for doing just that. Right, Joe Manchin?
Now, the bottom line is that the plan Obama rattled off Sunday night is a simplistic solution to a complicated problem. He suggested an eight-team playoff that would add three weeks to the season, but there was no mention of how the bowls play into that, how the teams are determined or anything else of substance.
The guy obviously hasn't thought it through, nor should he be expected to. But presidents - especially those elected with a mandate - have a way of putting pressure on others in powerful positions, such as college presidents. Who knows? Maybe something will come of it.
Of course, the last time a president put in his two cents worth in deciding college football's national champion it was disastrous. In 1969, Richard Nixon had been in office less than a year when he unilaterally declared that the winner of the Texas-Arkansas game would be the titlist. The guy even went so far as to present Texas with a plaque commemorating its championship. One small problem: Joe Paterno, whose Penn State team was also unbeaten in 1969, took exception and still burns at the mention of it.
By the way, Paterno is one of those conservative Republican coaches, a guy who actually spoke and seconded the nomination of George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention. But he also contributed $250 to Obama's campaign last summer, his first contribution ever for a presidential candidate.
Not sure what that means, but I just thought you should know.
nn
This whole Big East football championship race seems pretty cut and dried, right?
Cincinnati (4-1 in the league) can win it by beating Pitt and Syracuse at home. Period.
Pitt (3-1) can win it by beating Cincinnati and Connecticut on the road and West Virginia at home. Period.
West Virginia (3-1) can win it by beating Louisville and Pitt on the road and South Florida at home, but only if Cincinnati loses at least once.
Again, pretty clear cut, right?
Here's the thing, though. Would anyone be surprised if none of those teams does what it needs to do?
I wouldn't.
Let's say Pitt beats Cincinnati and West Virginia, but loses on the road at UConn. Let's say West Virginia wins out except for a loss at Pitt. Let's say UConn (3-2) wins at reeling USF before beating Pitt at home. And finally, let's assume Rutgers (4-2) wins its only remaining league game at home against Louisville, and that after losing to Pitt, Cincinnati sends Greg Robinson into unemployment by handing Syracuse yet another loss.
Guess what. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pitt, Rutgers and West Virginia all finish 5-2 in the Big East and the league's automatic BCS bowl berth goes to . . . well, who knows? The league's tie-breaking procedure only goes to a four-way tie.
Well if it happens, the four-team tie-breaker would be applied to five teams, which means forming a mini-conference of the tied teams. And that means the BCS bowl would go to the highest finisher in the BCS standings because in that mini-conference all five teams would be 2-2 against the other four.
And who would that be? Well, the only teams on any kind of a win streak after such late-season bloodshed would be Connecticut (three straight) and Rutgers (six in a row). And so that means the two teams no one is giving a chance now would probably be the ones getting the most votes in the polls that make up two-thirds of the BCS formula.
Let the carnage begin.
Reach Dave Hickman at 348-1734 or dphickm...@aol.com.
MORGANTOWN - Cleaning out a crowded notebook and a cluttered mind while wondering if Barack Obama's stance on a college football playoff might have changed a handful of votes (not that it would have mattered one way or another):
Now, not to paint with too wide a brush here, but it's been my experience that college football coaches tend toward conservatism and Republicanism. Still, methinks even those in that majority may have perked up when Obama said this to 60 Minutes in an interview broadcast Sunday night:
"I don't know any serious fan of college football that disagrees with me on this,'' Obama said after laying out a rather simplistic plan for a playoff. "So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do.''
Well, it's certainly the right thing for someone to do. A president? Hey, if he's got the time, more power to him. And even if he doesn't have the time, how long does it take to order a handful of college presidents and athletic directors into a room and tell them they get no food or water until they come out with a workable plan?
It's not like there's no precedent for doing just that. Right, Joe Manchin?
Now, the bottom line is that the plan Obama rattled off Sunday night is a simplistic solution to a complicated problem. He suggested an eight-team playoff that would add three weeks to the season, but there was no mention of how the bowls play into that, how the teams are determined or anything else of substance.
The guy obviously hasn't thought it through, nor should he be expected to. But presidents - especially those elected with a mandate - have a way of putting pressure on others in powerful positions, such as college presidents. Who knows? Maybe something will come of it.
Of course, the last time a president put in his two cents worth in deciding college football's national champion it was disastrous. In 1969, Richard Nixon had been in office less than a year when he unilaterally declared that the winner of the Texas-Arkansas game would be the titlist. The guy even went so far as to present Texas with a plaque commemorating its championship. One small problem: Joe Paterno, whose Penn State team was also unbeaten in 1969, took exception and still burns at the mention of it.
By the way, Paterno is one of those conservative Republican coaches, a guy who actually spoke and seconded the nomination of George H.W. Bush at the 1988 Republican National Convention. But he also contributed $250 to Obama's campaign last summer, his first contribution ever for a presidential candidate.
Not sure what that means, but I just thought you should know.
nn
This whole Big East football championship race seems pretty cut and dried, right?
Cincinnati (4-1 in the league) can win it by beating Pitt and Syracuse at home. Period.
Pitt (3-1) can win it by beating Cincinnati and Connecticut on the road and West Virginia at home. Period.
West Virginia (3-1) can win it by beating Louisville and Pitt on the road and South Florida at home, but only if Cincinnati loses at least once.
Again, pretty clear cut, right?
Here's the thing, though. Would anyone be surprised if none of those teams does what it needs to do?
I wouldn't.
Let's say Pitt beats Cincinnati and West Virginia, but loses on the road at UConn. Let's say West Virginia wins out except for a loss at Pitt. Let's say UConn (3-2) wins at reeling USF before beating Pitt at home. And finally, let's assume Rutgers (4-2) wins its only remaining league game at home against Louisville, and that after losing to Pitt, Cincinnati sends Greg Robinson into unemployment by handing Syracuse yet another loss.
Guess what. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Pitt, Rutgers and West Virginia all finish 5-2 in the Big East and the league's automatic BCS bowl berth goes to . . . well, who knows? The league's tie-breaking procedure only goes to a four-way tie.
Well if it happens, the four-team tie-breaker would be applied to five teams, which means forming a mini-conference of the tied teams. And that means the BCS bowl would go to the highest finisher in the BCS standings because in that mini-conference all five teams would be 2-2 against the other four.
And who would that be? Well, the only teams on any kind of a win streak after such late-season bloodshed would be Connecticut (three straight) and Rutgers (six in a row). And so that means the two teams no one is giving a chance now would probably be the ones getting the most votes in the polls that make up two-thirds of the BCS formula.
Let the carnage begin.
Reach Dave Hickman at 348-1734 or dphickm...@aol.com.
