teddydupay4

Due to unscheduled personal life situations, I haven't been able to grace Sportsline with my gift of gab for a week or so.  Sometimes God likes to remind me that arguing Texas and Oklahoma isn't the most important thing in the world, but I still keep attempting to disagree.  So upon the return de Teddy, it's time to piss off a bunch of new age thinkers with "Why playoffs in college football wouldn't work."  I'll give you the long, drawn out, overused, over simplified, over using the word over in one sentence in blogs model proposed by some self imposed "genius" whilst sitting on the john one day at work and then tell you why it won't work...

As a disclaimer, I'm going at this with a few caveats so zealots won't start pumping ideas in that would NEVER fly in college football, like dissolution of conferences, suspensions of yearly rivalries, absolution of OOC rivalries, and things of that nature.  It's cute to say "just put all the teams in @ the beginning of the season and schedule based on that" but that's not realistic, and too much weed makes you think things like that.

1. 8 team model:  This seems to be the most neutral one.  The "marriage" between the plus one people and the 16 tream, let everyone in other than my kid's high school team people.  But like any marraige, there's give and take, both people normally are somewhat unhappy, and in the end there's no sex.  The 8 team model isn't forcing anyone to clean the sheets anytime soon.  The problem?  Once again it becomes a big brouhaha of which conferences get in and which do not.  Sure, 2 slots are reserved for the mid majors now, but what to make of Notre Dame?  How rediculous does the ND clause become NOW?  With 3 or fewer losses in any given year, ND is almost guaranteed to be ahead of at least one mid major champ.  Not fair at all.  On top of that, teams like 4 loss Kansas State would have gotten in a few years ago while the team they beat, 1 loss Oklahoma, ranked higher and that got to actually play in the title game against LSU?  They'd be home.  At the mercy of some team not even in the top 15.  The 8 team model is stupid because it doesn't guard against that team that loses just enough to not be ranked but still plays in the conference title game (that's you, Texas '96, KSU '03, and FSU '05) and pulls one upset all year after underachieving yet still gets to play for a title?  Hogwash.  And this model wouldn't have settled much last year either, as UGA, some people's "best team in the damn land" still probably wouldn't have gotten in.  Doing the last 2 bids as at larges would cause more mid major constipation than the BCS is currently giving.  The 8 team model would be a total joke.

2. 16 team model:  The joke of all jokes.  That one friend who says she can handle her alcohol, so you tell her there's booze in her hairy buffalo you make her when all along there's nothing in it but punch and she starts stumbling around like Charlie Sheen after 2 sips.  That's this model.  Supporters will tell you that all 11 conferences would get a crack.  And then 5 at larges.  Well, not everyone needs a "crack."  This isn't a hooker, it's a championship.  I find nothing redeeming about a 7-5 Sun Belt champ playing for a title when it couldn't beat 2 SEC teams out of 12 with any consistency.  That's not fair.  That's just forcing bad playoff games, a long, drawn out season, and pretty much the death of OOC games b/c of the length of the season.  You're talking about literally an extra 3 weeks minimum plus the fact that the NCAA brass lies to us about wanting to keep football away from semester changes and finals as much as possible.  And thus, college football becomes what we who watch it all don't like about pro sports....3/4 months of somewhat meaningless regular season matchups culminating in a few great moments of playoff action....after about 7-9 lousy conference champs are pounded out.  A lot like hooking up with a girl and being all excited until you get her home and realize the bra was padded.  It looked good when you started out, but folks, the 16 teamer would just kill the game.  You want 80% of meaningless football?  Watch the NFL.

3. Plus 1 model:  The plus one to me is the closest and best version, but the Sportsline free for all'ers would never let it happen, and we all know this.  Once in college football history have more than 4 teams had a claim to play for a title, and realistically that year, only 3 really could take it to court that they had an airtight case.  But the powers that be and the fans are more concerned with the injustice levied upon possibly leaving out some 2 loss team that looks good late or a few mediocre conference champs than actually changing the system.  The layman's issue with this model is that it rewards teams similarly to the BCS...you can concievably get in with a lousy schedule.  But this time friends, that team will have 2, not one game to be exposed.  Others say it's not enough because you're singling out conference champs and leaving others in the dust.  Still others think that it would further continue to push out the mid majors.  I just kinda shrug @ all these notions, because I think once you lose a damn game, you thus lose the right to piss and moan about what you don't end up getting later on.  It's sports, not duck duck goose in kindergarten.  Not everyone needs to be picked so their egos won't get bruised.  The other issue is that truly, it will undermine the bowl system.  Rotating bowl games as semis and such will kill tie ins and piss off certain bowls, especially ones named after flowers that you give your wife after you scream at her and run over her cat (accidentally of course).  However, this model still would keep the integrity of the regular season. 

4. BCS:  We all know why it doesn't work.  Only 2 teams get in, and if you play your cards the right way...or play teams that fold like wet cards...you have a good shot at getting in.  Truthfully, the BCS generally works.  My biggest issue with it is that it has no backup installment for situations like Auburn going unbeaten in '04.  It's tough to make a system to guard against something that happens once in a blue moon...but let's be honest, it was unfair to the Aubies.  The other problem with the BCS is that it delivers what it says it will, a championship game betwixt #1 and #2...but boy does it follow up with a litany of suck BCS bowl games in it's wake.  It's like a really crappy 3 course meal followed by a sometimes decent dessert.  You end up feeling full, but not because you enjoyed it, mostly because you ate.  The BCS games are the same.  Yes, I get to watch football.  But I'm often terminally bored.  The addition of the 5th game to help mid majors in was a joke.  It also forces some other team in with no business getting in, espeically since the 3 teams per conference rule hasn't been enlisted yet.  If only Auburn coulda played for the title last year.  Because it was pretty obvious that no one really deserved getting in, on the whole.

Basically, playoffs can't be done because there is no sane way to do it and keep college football watchable.  Maybe we should go all Colin Cowherd and say "that's the beauty of it."  Because no one's talking NFL in July.  MLB in December.  College hoops any month but March.  But they're talking college football year-round.  Carping, moaning, whining, fighting.  It's a 365 day squabble, like a really piss poor relationship.  But you keep fighting because the make up sex...well, the juice is worth the squeeze.  That's college football.  That's why we have no playoff.  And ya know what?  Maybe we shouldn't.  Because if there was nothing to argue about, some of us would actually hafta work.

Closing in on the halfway point for not knowing if you can get through another weekend without college football, and thankfully, there's still plenty to complain about.  In the interest of not having to resort to baseball or curling columns, the decision on this end is to grovel about the issues in college football that need to be changed on an individual basis.  This weeks installment of "The people who run college football suck" involves the good old, oft complained about...schedule.

Issue 1: What is smarter if you just want to play for a title...pack the schedule OOC with cupcakes?  Or play tough teams in hopes that you get battle tested and with a few fingers, toes, and genitals crossed...not lose too many games.  We all know that if you're a BCS team, it's probably smarter to just put skimpy wimpy teams in your building every Saturday and hope there are no major slip ups.  People think this isn't fair.  Mostly the one's that run the risk of getting drubbed 3-4 times a year at the least.

Solution: For this particular issue, ban the scheduling of D-1AA teams.  Or whatever the hell they call it now.  The names to half this stuff changes more than my underwear.  For the record, we're going on 2.5 days now with this pair.  But I have showered several times, so in a way, I think it's a little hypocritical for my unmentionables that are being mentioned.  Anyways, what happens if you ban these teams from being on the schedule?  All these teams so effing desperate for a little 12th game nookie will actually need to worry about losing that game on some level if they don't pony up and play someone D1...A.  For instance and argument, look at Wisconsin, who after the Big 10 season goes all workman's effort on the world and decides to show up for a late season glorified practice game against Cal-Polytechnic.  Seriously.  What is the point of this game?  Would it be so hard to toss Texas Tech on there earlier in the season?  Scheduling of non D1A teams is at an all time high, meaning teams basically just want a free win.  The 12th game was enacted to give voters "extra knowledge" of sorts when deciding who plays for a title after some serious controversey.  Tell me, oh wise voters, what does beating Coastal Carolina or Concordia Seminary have to do with any extra knowledge.  The 12th game is about money.  That's it.

Issue 2: The schedule is set up for BCS teams to essentially do what they want and leaves the little guy in the lurch, as BCS teams don't wanna go there to play and say "hey, we can get in without playing you.  You have no choice.  Knife to the throat.  Now go make me a sandwich, non BCS woman."

Solution:  I've heard a great ton of these.  I weeded them out and have condensed it down to the most interesting one, if not the most fiscally responsible.  Regulate the # of home games per year.  The guy that came up with this says 6-6.  I don't necessarily think that's the solution.  That's too many, and budding programs often need those giant paydays from the big boys to fund their football program.  So I think you just modify it.  Like making an A cup into a B or small C.  Not stuffing it overboard for the sake of Ds.  Demand each team play at least ONE road OOC game IF they choose to play 12 games.  This gets sticky in say, the Pac 10, where they already play 9 conference games.  So really, why not just add a conference game to everyone's schedule?  Other than obviously the Big East, who already plays 7 games and everyone.  Admit it, it woulda been nice to know if Kansas was really that good, and playing Oklahoma might have gotten them into the title game.  We know about the Big 10.  Would you really mind an extra ACC or SEC game instead of seeing Western Carolina scroll across the bottom for someone every week?  So one extra conference game...so we can be SURE when a conference champ is crowned, that's the right team.  One guaranteed, you HAVE to play it OOC road game, and boom, things really start happening.

Issue 3: Teams schedule based on who they think will get them natty tele time.  So if South Florida calls and wants a game, and Alabama calls and wants a game...you pick Alabama.  No brainer.  So USF has a tougher road to hoe convincing teams that it should be on their schedule when some big brand name team is waiting outside in the car in a short skirt and no panties.

Solution:  Flex television scheduling.  Borrow something from the NFL if you're gonna send your guys there.  Each week, the NFL decides the NBC Sunday night football schedule based on interest in teams at that time, mostly due to what is at stake.  So the onus will be to put good teams on your schedule regardless of being name brand because if that team is successful, the liklihood of you getting on the tube is higher.  ABC, CBS, to some degree ESPN, and FSN all have set schedules going into the season.  Sure it's regional, but what happens when Ohio State loses their first 4 games and we're still stuck watching them play 0-5 Iowa because there was no TV flexibility?  Wanna be on TV?  Win.  And play teams who win.  This would help mid major teams as well.  Because if you were pondering having a game with Boise State but didn't wanna be squeezed out on TV time, the knowledge that this team would keep you on if it was good should help.  In theory, of course.

Issue 4: Teams get treated unfairly for putting formerly decent teams on the schedule that just happened to have had a rough stretch going.  Ohio State against Washington being a good example.  When this game was enacted, Washington was in the theroes of Rose Bowl contention, even finished #3 in one season recently.  But the Huskies went through a black period with Slick Rick and his under the table betting and are making it back.  Slowly.  So when Ohio State blows them out, everyone gives the Bucks guff.  But hey, they didn't know Rick just HAD to bet on UConn that one year.

Solution:  Stop the rediculous practice of scheduling games so far in advance.  There are teams that know who they're playing in 2015 but not next frigging season.  How is that?  Will we be shaking our fingers at Oklahoma for putting that "weak Tennessee team" on the schedule in 10 years b/c the Vols have fallen on hard times after Phil Fulmer is in an obesity rehab clinic?  So hot damn, maybe allow teams to schedule into 2 years ahead of time unless it's the renewal of a long standing contract, like a Clemson-South Carolina or Michigan-Notre Dame.

Issue 5:  Teams back out, leaving others in limbo...which is where these sad, salty, matchups with nobodies always seems to happen.

Solution:  Penalties.  Harshy ones.  If you back out of a game, basically you pay the team you back out on for the loss of revenue.  How much you pay them is determined by how far in advance you backed out.  Thus, like this year, Arkansas ducking Texas next season...say they do it last year, they pay 15% of the revenue they gain from the extra home game.  Since they did it this year...20%.  The only thing that seems to talk is the almighty dollar.  So when people start having to pony it up, boom, they say "maybe that bludgeoning by Texas really is worth it."

This has been this weeks installment of "Why the people who run NCAA football suck."  It has been brought to you by Hamm's and Hamm's light.  Always remember kiddies, drink on the cheap.  You're gonna feel like crap the next morning anyways.  May as well feel like crap and be a little heavier in the pockets.

This is a dead time for me right now.  College football is over, the Tigers as per usual are already out of the MLB playoff race before May, the Wings should be out soon, and the NBA playoffs...while exciting...are missing my team.  Not to my surprise.  So something fun, creative, and less nasty than I normally toss out there sounds like it should be in order, no?  Pick a team and how would YOU change it.  For me, after watching my Pacers limp through the end of the season with two deflating losses against teams barely trying, it's about that time to stir the pot.  And this time, Bonzi Wells isn't bringing his water bong over to help.

The first thing I would do if I could be Larry Bird...fix that overbite.  Okay, that was below the belt.  Really though...here goes...

1. RELEASE Jamaal Tinsley.  He's virtually untradable w/o taking back in a horrid contract.  You keep waiting for him to get healthy and leave strippers alone thinking "if we can just get a few healthy months outta him, maybe someone's a taker."  Sorry, Isiah is gone, so the leaguewide idea of "well, piss, the Knicks would prolly take our guy" theory is out the window.  My idea is just cutting the guy.  Athletes seem to work a lot harder when they don't actually have a job to go to the next season, so say maybe he's on the books when the year starts....but realizes if he gets healthy enough to help a team needing backup PG help willing to spend, boom...his albatross, 21 mil remaining contract goes off the books.  And let's face it, if you draft a PG anyways...which I'll get to later, J-Tins isn't sitting the bench grooming the guy on anything other than extra value meals and Chronic.

2. Extend Danny Granger.  Usually I call Grang overrated, a one trick pony with no handles, spotty shooter, basically a career role player.  But he came on @ the end of the year.  The guy's not worth the max, and he knows it.  So get him while the gettin's good.  He really made strides this season and @ the very least looks like a good #2, low end #1 guy going into next season.  It would put them over the luxury tax, but if money is gonna be given to guys like Troy Murphy and not Danny Granger, someone should be fired.

3. KEEP JO.  This one might get me fired, but there are 2 schools of thinking here....b/c he's not dumb enough to opt out.  If you want him to go that route, a bottle of Jack and locking him in a room to be lectured by Latrell Sprewell might help.  Since Spre isn't gonna lend his services I betcha, you've gotta keep him.  You won't get any value for the guy whatsoever since he's not shown good health and that likely means just taking on bad contracts.  Keeping him would give you 22 mil to play with in 2 seasons....or during the middle of a season when teams are just looking to fold tent and pick up giant salaries to get off the books later.  You know someone will eventually reach.  The Pacers would be sitting a lot prettier right now had they not traded Austin Croshere's albatross contract for Marquis Daniels...whom I'm not sur