A non-football item:

Last-minute Bush effort to clearcut Oregon forests: http://www.oregon.sierraclub.org/

Any idea when BlueO 2.0 is coming?

As Beaver Believer I must congratulate the Ducks on a fantastic game plan and victory.

Why no play-off for Div 1A Football? Easy, there is not enough money in it. That the President's council can be so 2 faced as to embrace College Basketballs infamous March Madness, yet pooh-pooh a Football play-off is ridiculous.

Weis is gone, he got his contract extension (and Willingham his early ouster) for the most blatantly discriminatory reason of all - Weis was a Notre Dame product and Willingham wasn't.

“"My colleagues and I on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee have discussed the future of postseason football on many occasions and we do not believe a playoff would be in the best interest of the sport, the student-athletes or our many other constituencies," Frohnmayer said.”

Those other “constituencies” being, of course, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Franklin, Mr. Grant, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Hamilton.

First of all, there is no more Div. 1-A football. Nor is there a Div. 1-AA.

We now have the Bowl Championship Div. and the Playoff Championship Div.

And, of course, Murphy's correct about the Dead presidents making this decision.

The least they could do is be honest about it and admit it's all about the $$$$$.

Instead they choose to lie with ridiculous excuses.

Just admit it, Frohnmayer, there's more money in it for you this way.

And these dishonest sacks of puss are running the nation's top educational institutions? Disgraceful!

That explains a lot.

My comment didn’t win any friends when I posted it last year. But that isn’t going to stop me from repeating it again today.

I think the cost of moving to a playoff system (less competitive games for the first few rounds) isn’t worth determining a “true” national champion.

As a reminder … here are some of the truly memorable moments from last year that I mentioned in my comments.

1. A walk on kicker puts Boston College over Navy at the last second.
2. Texas Tech with the largest come back in bowl history.
3. Oregon State wins on a late two point conversion.
4. Nevada loses by one to Miami.
5. Texas by 2.
6. Oklahoma State wins on a kick with 8.9 seconds on the clock.
7. Georgia comes back from 18 at Halftime to beat Virginia Tech.
8. And NOTHING can top the Boise State win. I still can't believe that I witnessed that.

Last year provided great football! And yes … a championship game would be a singularly great game but would a tournament bracket provide better football games than the bowl championship series in total. I seriously doubt it. Here is the current Division 2 bracket (http://www.d2football.com/images/2008playoffbracket.gif). Just as a I remember from last year, very few competitive games. Why is this a better option for a football fan?

"Why is this a better option for a football fan?"

Because champions and which teams play in the championship games should be decided on the field, not by ballot or computer.

Ant TRUE sports fan knows that.

Nice try, Dylan, but you're just offering more seriously silly reasoning.

It's about the money.

"1. A walk on kicker puts Boston College over Navy at the last second. 2. Texas Tech with the largest come back in bowl history. 3. Oregon State wins on a late two point conversion. 4. Nevada loses by one to Miami. 5. Texas by 2. 6. Oklahoma State wins on a kick with 8.9 seconds on the clock. 7. Georgia comes back from 18 at Halftime to beat Virginia Tech. 8. And NOTHING can top the Boise State win. I still can't believe that I witnessed that."

That was a great win by Boise State. Too bad the team wasn't rewarded with another game in a second round. That's how Cinderella teams come to be. Instead they got a pat on the back and "good game." Great games? Who cares. There was absolutely nothing on the line. Win or lose, same amount of cash, same rewards. That sucks!

Moreover, nobody was watching the first five games you mentioned, because they fall into the category of Mediocrity Bowls that infest college football.

Most of those teams didn't even belong in post-season play. Navy? Nevada? Who freakin' cares.

Nobody was watching.

It's greed, greed, greed ... at the expense of integrity. Shocking!!!

But, Dylan, there's a sucker born every minute, eh?

"Ant(y) TRUE sports fan knows that."

Seriously ... did you just question my sports manhood and then misspell "Knute Rockne" all in the same comment? Gotta call you on that.

“Because champions and which teams play in the championship games should be decided on the field, not by ballot or computer.”

Now this is just silliness. As some level, ballots and computers will always determine who plays on the field. The debate over bubble teams (and seating) will ALWAYS be an issue and will ALWAYS be decided by ballots and computers. The question is … would a playoff system be better? And I am unconvinced. But regardless, both systems have a championship game where teams compete and a winner is “decided on the field.”

“It's about the money.”

I am not going to argue with this but I’ll take it to the next step. I would argue (and the BSC Commission at some level agrees), more money is made under the bowl system than a tournament system. I would argue that more competitive games equal higher view ship numbers and more ad revenue.

President-elect Obama's position on college footbal is one of many that we share. Either return to to old bowl system and accept uncertainty as to a national champion or go to a playoff system. The BCS is nothing more than a biased system that offers an artificial answer as to who is best.

Speaking of football travesties, I Plaxico Burress's recent mishap offers a good reminder for the importance of gun safety. Check out some thoughts on this from a small town doctor perspective at The Country Doc Report: http://thecountrydocreport.wordpress.com

"I would argue (and the BSC Commission at some level agrees), more money is made under the bowl system than a tournament system."

No shit! That's what I've been saying. And that's the sole reason for avoiding playoffs. You're a freakin' genius. Reading comprehension not what it used to be, eh?

And yes, I was questioning your smarts.

Do we want the computers picking two teams, or should we choose 8 (or 16) and then make them play it out on the field? Sports fans want to see the games, not the ballot results.

I simply do not accept your reasoning that picking teams by computer makes for better games.

First of all, the strongest teams always play the weakest teams in the first round of a playoff system. That's the way tournament brackets work. First round games are often lopsided. Are you just pretending to be daft, or do you really not understand that.

That's why when teams like Boise State win it's a big deal. Then it's a bigger deal when they win in the second round, and so on and so on. That's called a Cinderella story. No playoffs, no Cinderella stories.

Second, comparing Div. 1-A (for brevity's sake) to Div. 2 is not valid. Apples and Oranges, mon frer.

"I would argue that more competitive games equal higher view ship numbers and more ad revenue."

What are they competing for. Under the current system there is only one Bowl game that has anything riding on it. That's anti-competitive and anti-sports. I'd rather watch a blowout where there's something on the line than a close game between two mediocre teams with no consequences for the winner or loser.

It's as simple as that. But I know some people like their Poulon Weed Eater bowl games.

There's a sucker born every minute, eh Dylan?

Posted by: Mike Mansfield | Nov 30, 2008 1:20:07 PM

“Great games? Who cares. There was absolutely nothing on the line. Win or lose, same amount of cash, same rewards. That sucks!”

First … I’d be happy to support an effort to give student athlete better financial compensation for their work. But to suggest that college athletes compete BECAUSE of a cash reward or a bowl purse is just ridiculous. Many of these students have no hope of making it to the next level .. and they do it for the love of the game. How many of the Boise State players do you expect to see play on Sundays? Do you think they didn’t leave everything on the field in that game?

“Moreover, nobody was watching the first five games you mentioned, because they fall into the category of Mediocrity Bowls that infest college football.

Most of those teams didn't even belong in post-season play. Navy? Nevada? Who freakin' cares.”

Here is the area we disagree the most. As I talked about above … these were great games that I don’t think would have existed within a playoff system. The bowl committee selected two solid teams that both had an excellent chance at winning. And yes … I tuned in to watch. Paul Johnson’s triple option attack (before he took it to Georgia Tech and laid a thumping to the Bulldogs) with Navy’s unbelievable full back made for a great match up against Boston College’s Matt Ryan. And Nevada with its ingenious pistol offense is a revolutionary approach to the game that I would rather see compete against an evenly match opponent than the Trojans in a first round match up. Would you be more inclined to watch Navy vs. USC? Or Navy vs. BC?

Posted by: Knute Rockney | Nov 30, 2008 1:47:25 PM

Knute clearly is showing strong understand of sarcasm but has piss poor logic.

“Do we want the computers picking two teams, or should we choose 8 (or 16) and then make them play it out on the field?”

Or 32? or 64? or the entire field of schools. Regardless, your original contention that a playoff system removes computers and ballots is ridiculous on face. Even if you select the entire field of teams, computers and ballots would still select ranks. Not to mention the constant debate over bubble teams. Any system will still need computers and ballots and would selection who has the right to "play on the field."

“I simply do not accept your reasoning that picking teams by computer makes for better games.”

Then disprove me with something more and unsubstantial assertion? Additionally, as a general strategy, it not the best tactic to admit your wrong in the next paragraph. “First of all, the strongest teams always play the weakest teams in the first round of a playoff system. That's the way tournament brackets work. First round games are often lopsided.” Exactly, lopsided … uninteresting games. Not only have I suggested that last years Bowl selection system created great match ups .. but we also agree that a playoff system makes a few rounds of “lopsided” games.

“Second, comparing Div. 1-A (for brevity's sake) to Div. 2 is not valid. Apples and Oranges, mon frer.”

Why? Something more than an assertion is all I ask. But for the life of me, I can’t understand why you would you argue with my showing of the lopsided results of the first few rounds of the current D2 tournament and then concede that this is a likely result.

“That's anti-competitive and anti-sports. I'd rather watch a blowout where there's something on the line than a close game between two mediocre teams with no consequences for the winner or loser.”

At least you’re willing to admit the choice. I’ll take games that are closer and be happy. To me … closer games are more competitive. But thankfully you’re also admitting that a financial incentive isn’t the sole motivation for many of us. Because my selection, and your choice outlined above, is based on closer (more competitive) games.

We have Mumbai to consider, and Black Hx month just over with, and this is what we talk about... ehhh.

"...to suggest that college athletes compete BECAUSE of a cash reward or a bowl purse is just ridiculous."

Ummm, McFly, the schools and athletic programs benefit financially. Not the players. Even the most obvlivious ob=servers of college athletics understand that. Since your words suggest YOU don't, everything that follows from you should be considered in that context.

"for the life of me, I can’t understand why you would you argue with my showing of the lopsided results of the first few rounds of the current D2 tournament"

That you don't understand things "for the life of you" is not a surprise.

Let me explain it to you. You;'re first round Div. 2 bracket may only prove that levels of parity among top tier Div. 2 teams are not the same as they are in Div. 1. In other words, you haven't proven anything accpet that stats can be misinterpreted.

“Do we want the computers picking two teams, or should we choose 8 (or 16) and then make them play it out on the field?”

Or 32? or 64? or the entire field of schools.

Already provided an answer for that. You're just not too good on the reading comprehension.

additionally, as a general strategy, it not the best tactic to admit your wrong in the next paragraph.

I said it was a possibility, not a certainty. Again with the reading comprehension skills, mon frer. Moreover, you skipped the substantive arguments about creation of Cinderalla stories as they evolve through a tournament. You also ignore the point about providing a post season where more than one game has something riding on it.

Since you did not rebut these points, you must agree with them.

If you'd actually like to disagree with the points I actually argued, rather than simply putting words in my mouths so that you can win, well that's just not very competitive.

But that's how you roll, isnt it?

Finally, If this is such a great system breeding such great competition, how come no other sporting league, professional college or amateur uses it.

There's a sucker born every minute!!

\

comparing Div. 1-A (for brevity's sake) to Div. 2 is not valid. Apples and Oranges, mon frer.

I thought you'd never come around. So you agree that just because Div 2 has a playoff, that doesn't make it right for Div 1-A, right? ;)

"So you agree that just because Div 2 has a playoff, that doesn't make it right for Div 1-A, right? ;)"

No, what I'm saying is that there is no proof that results from a Div. II tournament are indicative of what would happen in Div. 1-A because there are too many uncontrolled variables.

Let me tell you a little story about the New York Giants, an underdog "wildcard" team that made it all the way to Superbowl champions despite not being given a chance in ANY of it's playoff games.

If the NFL adopted a "system" like Div. 1-A, then the "experts" would have chosen a "more competitive" team to play in the Superbowl, and the Giants never would have gotten their chance.

That's what's stifled when experts try to choose "evenly matched" teams rather than devising a system of automatic and at-large berths in which the champions win it on the field by withstanding the pressures and travails of a traditional single-elimination tournament.

And again, you do not breed competition by trying to handpick good games and then making those teams take a month off before they play the game. You don't breed a competitive post season when only one game has anything riding on it.

You don't breed competition by eliminating the chance for an underdog like the Giants to win it all. In fact, you stifle real competition.

Would there be blowouts in a playfoff system? Sure, just like there are blowouts in the current bowl system. That happens in sports. But fear of watching a blowout shouldn't cause you to eliminate underdogs from a chance of winning it all. That's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's anti-competition.

"...Paul Johnson’s triple option attack (before he took it to Georgia Tech and laid a thumping to the Bulldogs) with Navy’s unbelievable full back made for a great match up against Boston College’s Matt Ryan. And Nevada with its ingenious pistol offense is a revolutionary approach to the game that I would rather see compete against an evenly match opponent."

Well, there is that 12 game regular season, isn't there? So you believe having an interesting offensive scheme should automatically qualify a team for post-season play? That's certainly different.

Better yet, how about when a program or offensive scheme proves itself by winning an automatic or at-large berth and then going deep into the playoffs, they will have proven that they've truly arrived, 'cause, you know, they're beating teams they're not "supposed" to beat.

The Bowl system is an antiquated hold over from a bygone era that is kept on life support because the greedy old men of the NCAA lack the imagination to understand how to make a playoff system work for them financially. And that's the truth.