Today In the NCAA Cartel
In the wake of a predictably dreary NCAA title game, a couple points. First of all, I’m sure that BCS apologists will see Alabama’s win as a vindication of a broken system, but it’s not — the Tide should not have been in that game. If actual competition isn’t going to determine who plays if your championship game, and given the rarity of interconference games between elite teams (Alabama played exactly none) there should be a very strong presumption against intraconference rematches in a title game. And that goes double when the alleged #2 team lost at home. And leaving all that aside, Oklahoma State had the same record as Alabama against a tougher schedule; they should have been in that game, and their presence might have made it mildly interesting.
On a more important subject, Nocera has two good columns about the NCAA Cartel. On the most recent, if Nocera’s reporting accurately represents the facts it’s a remarkable story; apparently, in giving students suggestions about how their papers might be improved by NCAA standards I’ve been suborning academic misconduct. And while I’m sure many actual abuses exist within the tutoring system, the lack of due process is disturbing.
His broader column about the NCAA cartel has a revealing story:
Recently, Mark Emmert, the president of the N.C.A.A., tried to make the rules a tad less onerous. He got the N.C.A.A. board of directors to approve an optional $2,000 stipend as well as a four-year scholarship instead of the current one-year deal for players.
And how did the cartel react to these modest changes? It rose up in revolt. Enough universities signed an override petition to temporarily ice the new stipend. The same thing happened with the four-year scholarship.
A lawyer in Fort Worth, Christian Dennie, who specializes in sports law, got ahold of an internal N.C.A.A. document outlining some of the objections. One is especially worth repeating: “The new coach may have a completely different style of offense/defense that the student athlete no longer fits into,” wrote Indiana State. Four-year scholarships might mean that the school would be stuck with “someone that is of no ‘athletic’ usefulness to the program.” Thus does at least one school show how it truly views its “student athletes.” (Andy Staples at Sports Illustrated first reported on this document.)
Are you telling me that schools want to be able to abandon academic support for their “student”-athletes if they fail to fit into a coach’s plans? Why, this kind of having-it-all-ways is almost enough to make me question the validity of the Noble Ideal of Amateurism.
Besides, everyone knows that if players were allowed to be fairly compensated this would prevent “amateur” sports from giving grotesquely over-market compensation to laughably inept buffoons. Although it must be said that the Weis hiring produced what might be the funniest headline in history. (And applicable throughout history! “Matt Morris’s salary structure shows that the Pirates are committed to winning.”)
My problem is that a team that couldn’t even win its own division much less its own conference got a title shot over a team that did both. That’s not to say that Oklahoma State is the better team, but Alabama had it’s chance to “take care of business” on November 5th and lost.
Frankly, I think LSU has almost as much right to feel gipped as Oklahoma State. Almost. They did everything they were supposed to do and the BCS still screwed them.
I’m with you on this one.
They beat Teh Krimson Toads earlier.
This game was LSU’s to lose – which they did.
Of course, people will say – well, they COULD have won!
But the point is that they didn’t. And it’s tough in football to beat the same team twice in a season – College OR Pro. And it’s not like there weren’t any other deserving teams like OSU or Stanford that might have made for a better game.
I stopped watching these BCS championship game farces a long, long time ago.
And now that the game’s on Monday night, the NCAA can rest assured that even if my ass stays unemployed for the rest of my natural f*cking life, I’ll never watch another CBCS (Corporate Bowl Championship Series) final for the rest of it.
F*ck the NCAA!
And f*ck their BCS!
That’s not to say that Oklahoma State is the better team
Right. But for that matter, Pittsburgh would probably beat Denver 8 our of 10 times on a neutral field, but that doesn’t mean they deserve to go to New England this weekend. Alabama shouldn’t get a second bite at the apple in this structure, especially when it got LSU at home.
I don’t get this argument. The BCS framework isn’t, “Let’s pick the game that best replicates a fictional playoff,” or, “Let’s pick the game that would be most exciting to some set of viewers.” It’s, “Which are the two best teams?” Without considering things like, “Did these two teams happen to play each other?”
Your criteria for interconference wins basically should be excepted for SEC teams, because their conference wins are better than your best non-conference wins.
So, given that Alabama was significantly more impressive than LSU in every non-field-goal-related aspect of the first game, an LSU win over Oklahoma State would have been hollow.
Your criteria for interconference wins basically should be excepted for SEC teams, because their conference wins are better than your best non-conference wins.
The problem is that this is bullshit. The Big 12 was, if anything, better. None of Alabama’s wins, conference or nonconference, was particularly impressive.
Well, he’s right about what the BCS system is, effectively. I don’t like it and think that it should try to replicate a playoff system, but you can’t really use that as a critique when it’s not the professed goal of the system.
Regarding conference strength, if you use Sagarin’s ratings the problem is that both LSU and Alabama are considerably better than Ok St. I am surprised with the Big 12′s performance this year. Checking briefly, it looks like of the bowl teams, the only non-conference losses they had all year were to Arizona St in overtime and Arkansas in a bowl. That’s pretty damn impressive.
1)Who says you can’t challenge the BCS goals? The fact that there’s no competition to decide who plays in the national championship game is the problem.
2)Remember that the rankings take Alabama thumping LSU into account.
Well, yeah, but I’ll bet the Big 12′s bowl victories helped their ranking out as well. It would be nice to look at the pre-bowl rankings for this discussion.
I’m 99.9% sure that the Big 12 ranked higher before the bowls. At any rate, the point is that the idea that the SEC towers over all the other conferences is nonsense.
Your criteria for interconference wins basically should be excepted for SEC teams, because their conference wins are better than your best non-conference wins.
Yeah, because Florida and Tennessee were such fucking powerhouses. Way better than Stanford or Oregon, for example.
I don’t have any problem with re-matches; if Oregon had beaten USC, for example, you’d have had to make the case that two teams losing one game to LSU should be passed over for a team that lost at Iowa State. But that doesn’t say anything about the variety of other problems with the BCS/NCAA.
So losses are more important than wins? OSU had a stronger schedule than ‘Bama or Oregon.
I totally agree with Scott about this (and I say this as a Poke-hatin’ Sooner fan).
I hope that this year’s title game should at least put to rest the bs “Every Game’s a Playoff” defense of the status quo … though I suppose even that hope assumes logic and good faith on the part of folks who’ve long lacked both (not you, Robert, but defenders of the BCS).
Then you eat his scholarship. You fucked up, that’s not the students fault.
I can’t speak for the Indiana State example specifically, but most big time football schools are quite willing to continue supporting for injured athletes, or athletes that are not viable transfer candidates – they just don’t want those scholarships to count against the total/annual NCAA cap for roster athletes (which was established in 1987 and toughened in the early 90s).
All fair points, but:
1. Okla. State barely beat Stanford (and won kinda how LSU won the 1st time vs. Bama, by virtue of a neurotic kicker). If Stanford was properly ranked at # 4, then OSU’s ranking doesn’t look mistaken.
2. Ala. lost once, to LSU; OSU lost once, to … Iowa State? If you’re going to make the point that Ala. had an easier schedule, then OSU shouldn’t be losing to an easier opponent. I think this was the decisive factor overriding any presumptions vs. same-conference championships.
3. If you were ever going to allow a rematch, that freakish LSU-Bama game was the time to do it.
It would’ve been nice to see OSU play LSU, and I encourage the Cowboys and LSU to make that happen in 2012 or 2013, just like Oregon and LSU did.
1) I don’t think we need to know the result of the State-Standford game to know State got hosed. Them actually winning it doesn’t really make the case against them better.
2) They lost to a team in OT. Shouldn’t we compare their wins to Alabama’s wins instead of comparing their one losses?
3) The fact the first LSU-Alabama game was awful is a good argument NOT to have a rematch.
NO; I don’t need to have the aesthetic preferences of the sports media determining who’ll be in the championship game, and I say that as a fan of the most exciting team in college football.
Iowa State?
In OT, on the road, the day of a horrible tragedy for the school. But the real question is, who did Alabama beat? The highest ranked opponent they defeated all year was a mediocre Florida team whose offense was being run by Charlie Weis. Ok St’s wins at Texas A&M and against Oklahoma are a lot more impressive than anything Alabama did. The Tide played one elite team and lost at home.
I think Arkansas qualifies as a quality opponent, since the only games they lost all year were at Bama and at LSU.
Well, maybe Alabama lost to LSU intentionally the first time, given that it was a meaningless game.
No, Arkansas is very good. Again, if you want to use Sagarin’s ratings Arkansas is just a hair behind Oklahoma and much better than A&M. And Alabama kicked their butts. I imagine that has a lot to do with Alabama’s ranking in his Pure Points system.
Beating A&M is more impressive than beating Arkansas, really? Did you watch the Cotton Bowl?
I concede the point. (About Arkansas, not Oklahoma.)
We should also note that Okla St. lost to Iowa St. about 12 hours after the Women’s basketball coach died in a plane crash. While that might sound silly, I watched the first half of the game and Okla St. players were completely out of it, and I suspect that that had a pretty big effect on their performance that day.
Sorry, I can’t believe for a moment that college football players give a crap about a women’s basketball coach. Beyond attempt to get laid, women’s basketball has as much significance in these guys’ lives as attending a class.
I don’t concede your point at all, but even if you are correct it hardly matters. There are other possibilities here. For example, as athletes who travel across the country – much like the women’s basketball coach did – perhaps the accident had them reflecting a bit on their own mortality?
Alabama — also-rans in the SEC West, but champions of the whole country! Yeesh. I’m an SEC die-hard, but c’mon. Somebody else should’ve gotten to take a shot at the SEC champions.
What is this also-ran bullshit? If you’re going to complain that they didn’t win their division, you ought to at the very least acknowledge that the team ahead of them was #1 in the country and the only major undefeated school in the country. This is closer to the proverbial 100 win baseball team that has the second most wins in baseball but has a 102 win team in their division than it is to, say, the Nebraska team that lost to Miami in 2001.
That argument doesn’t work with respect to college football. A team with the second-best record in baseball that’s in the same division as the team with the best record gets a wild card spot in the playoffs. I would have no problem with Alabama playing in and winning the national title game if they had done so through a playoff system. In this instance, however, they were essentially hand-picked over teams that had actually managed to win their divisions and conferences.
The only “rematch” that would have done any justice to the way the BCS system is supposed to operate would have been LSU vs. Oregon, had Oregon not lost to USC.
But why? The theory that this game rests on is to find the two best teams and have them play each other. Why can’t the second best team be one who happens to be in the same division as the number one team? I don’t see why Oregon would be any more worthy for being in a different conference.
But the whole point is that OSU had a better record against a stronger schedule, plus they won their conference division and championship. Yes, Alabama’s one loss was to LSU in a game they had several chances to win, but that loss meant that they would ultimately not win their conference division or championship, and with a schedule that was weaker in total than what OSU played.
Alabama was plainly the better team last night. But that’s just it–last night. I don’t think it’s at all clear that they were one of the two best teams in the country over the course of the schedule they played.
But they didn’t have a better record, they had the same record. And even conceding the better schedule, Alabama beat the crap out of everyone they played, except LSU. Other than an OT loss against the number 1 team, they didn’t have a game within two touchdowns, despite going to the Swamp, going to PSU, and going to Auburn. OSU had four games within two touchdowns, three games within a field goal. They beat a six-loss AM team by a point. They might have had a greater degree of difficulty, but OSU’s splash was a LOT bigger than Bama’s. And it’s totally legitimate for voters to take that into account when figuring who is the second-best team.
Furthermore, I think you can make a pretty good argument that the strength of schedule really matters not so much against the mid-tiers vs the cupcakes (i.e. Alabama playing North Texas and G. Southern vs Oklahoma State’s playing Arizona), because the difference in quality is so huge that both teams will win. The SOS matters more against the top tier teams, when there is a more significant danger of losing, and obviously, OSU had no one comparable to LSU on their schedule.
despite going to the Swamp
Which this year was absolutely meaningless. Did you see the UF-FSU game? An unremarkable Florida State team beat UF by two touchdowns in a game that was Florida’s last chance to salvage something from their shit season.
Alabama going to Gainesville and winning meant jack shit in 2011. Sorry.
Not sure why you’re apologizing. Anyway, obviously this wasn’t quite like beating Meyer’s Gators, but a four-td win in the swamp, even against this year’s version, was a unquestionably a nice win. If it was absolutely meaningless, they would have dropped lots of home games by 28 points.
I already mentioned Renee Portland in the thread about the other Penn State scandal, but it’s worth pointing out that she not only kicked women off her team if she even suspected that they were lesbians, but threatened to pull the scholarship of any player who even talked to a player who had been kicked off. There are probably plenty of other coaches who want to keep that stick to threaten their players with, for whatever reason.
As an Alabama alumnus, I’m biased here but would make two points about the notion Alabama played a weak schedule.
First, the played Penn State at Penn State and crushed them. Penn State lost zero other games until their season fell apart because of the Sandusky scandal. PSU would almost certainly qualify as an “elite” team had the scandal not broken during the closing days of the season.
Second, Florida looked to be a very good team until they lost both their starting quarterback and their backup quarterback during the Alabama game! They had to play the rest of their season (or, at least, several subsequent games) with a third stringer.
I do detest the scheduling of weak sister out-of-conference foes, and Alabama does some of that. But they’ve also scheduled some really quality opponents in recent years: neutral site games with Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Michigan and the home and away with Penn State.
Re: Penn State
No. Before Sandusky, Penn State played cupcakes and the dregs of the Big Ten besides Alabama, and they kept barely beating them.
Temple by 4, Indiana by 4, Purdue by 5, Illinois by 3. This is not evidence of an elite team. The Sandusky scandal broke when they were going to start playing actual competition anyway, so their record probably wouldn’t have looked different had it not occurred.
Alabama played a weak schedule.
To be clear, I’m not arguing this. They didn’t play a weak schedule; it’s just that OSU played a stronger one. (Although I do agree with Ben that scandal or no scandal Penn State is not an elite team. It’s not Alabama’s fault per se, but it’s not an impressive win. OSU or Oregon would also be huge favorites in Happy Valley.)
Again, this is really more about the BCS than Alabama. The Tide are obviously as good as any team in the country, and if you want to say that they’d be favorites in a playoff system I won’t argue with you. But based on how things shaked out OSU should have been in the game.
Based on what shook out, I’d say Stanford deserved it more than OSU. Especially if you’re going to let a team in that didn’t win its division or conference, which I guess is okay now.
Again, Stanford may well be better than OSU, but they had a worse record against a worse schedule than either OSU or Alabama. You can’t give them the slot.
I don’t think Stanford (my school) deserved it more than OSU, but I also think that the pissy little signs, “We deserve to play LSU” were, well, pissy little attitudes. Hard to judge a team by its fans, but heck, if we’re going to do it with Notre Dame, why not OSU?
A playoff won’t necessarily give you the “best” teams at the end, as we all know. Upsets happen. A playoff is just another way to get to the end of the season. The BCS championship is, as Todd said, for the two best teams. I think those two were the best even before OSU eked out an overtime win against a much lower BCS ranked (4th, but a long ways off) team.
No OK St. is not in the same league as Alabama. One OSU had trouble stopping the run and Alabama was the number 1 defense in every category. OSU was 89th in total defense. BAMA or LSU would have dismantled OSU. The OSU offensive line was just better than average at best and the defense was fair to poor.
Florida looked to be a very good team until they lost both their starting quarterback and their backup quarterback during the Alabama game!
Not from where I’m sitting, they didn’t.
(Hint: I’m sitting about 90 miles from Gainesville.)
The idea that Alabama trouncing LSU is any kind of argument that Alabama didn’t deserve to be in the title game is nothing short of preposterous, really. I say this as a huge fan of your blog posts: read this one back to yourself aloud, and tell me it doesn’t sound completely crazy.
It doesn’t sound crazy.
Alabama lost one game, in overtime, to the team ranked #1 going into the championship game because of missed field goals. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to rank them #2 based on that, especially when the next best option lost to Iowa State.
The point is to have the two best teams play. I think that’s what happened, and Alabama showed they were the best team.
The point is to have the two best teams play. I think that’s what happened, and Alabama showed they were the best team
… on Monday night.
Now you have two teams with identical records whose only losses were to each other. How can you argue that anything is really resolved by that?
[...] playoff known as the BCS National Championship Game shouldn’t have been invited instead. Scott Lemieux joins thousands in arguing that, given that only two teams can be invited, it should have been [...]