The Unfortunate 4 Team Playoff, and A Progressive Solution

~Anthony Constantino

For years there has been an increasing amount of people clamoring for a playoff in college football. Since the inception of the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system in NCAA Division-I Football the public, coaches, and various college officials have expressed their desire for a new system. Each year there is an elite team that seems so deserving of a shot at the championship, left out of the national championship game.

My question is simple: how can you pick the right two teams when there are usually around five elite teams in a given season? Is that even possible? Well don't worry, the NCAA has been listening and they have a proposal. Largely due to popular demand (and the desire to rake in more money), the idea of a four team playoff has been tossed around by conference commissioners and NCAA officials. Under this plan, the BCS would still be used for rankings and the normal bowl games.

If this new plan is approved, we will now have an argument over the fifth best team instead of arguing about the third best team. A four team playoff does nothing more than create another game that would generate money and determine very little. When boiled down, what does a four team playoff solve? I would say nothing.

 Most would agree that something needs to be done with the current format. We can look back at countless seasons where great teams were left out of the national title picture. The Auburn Tigers of 2004 come to mind as the most famous unbeaten team to not play for a national championship. The BCS ranking of 2003 was another tough situation, with no unbeaten teams and a top twelve that all had ten wins or more. Who can forget the undefeated teams that have been overlooked as title contenders since the inception of the BCS? Utah, Boise St., Hawaii, and TCU have all had undefeated teams that received about as much respect as the late Rodney Dangerfield. None of these programs have seen a title game at the height of their power.

So what can be done to better determine a national champion? Here is one radical proposal I guarantee you have never heard.

I would like you to think of the FIFA World Cup format. There are three years of qualifying to determine which countries make the tournament from each section of the world. The fourth year is the FIFA World Cup year. In that year (the most recent being in 2010), there is a 32 team tournament held in one host nation for one month. There is a group stage where eight groups of four teams face off. The top two teams advance to the knockout stage where the remaining teams play it out in a standard playoff format of win or go home. The field thins out until one team is declared a winner. I would argue that if this model was tweaked slightly, it would be a much better option for college football.

The first problem that would need to be addressed is the frequency of a championship. It would not be very fair for a freshmen to sit on the bench during a championship season, and graduate as a senior one year prior to his chance to shine in the tournament. Therefore every four years is likely too infrequent. I suggest that every other year a champion is determined. That way every player gets multiple chances to compete for a national championship.

The second issue is playing sites. Obviously there would not be a host school as that would be too chaotic, so that concept would not translate to the college game. The easiest way to handle this is to have higher seeded teams in the field play in front of their home crowd, a logical reward for regular season success.

According to every advertisement, "Every game matters" under the current BCS format. It is common knowledge that this is false. If every game mattered, Alabama would not have had their second chance to play LSU in the title game last season. If every game mattered, a team from a weaker conference could run the table and actually have a chance to be called the national champion. The college basketball regular season matters more than the college football regular season. At least if you win your conference in college basketball you receive an automatic bid into the NCAA tournament. In Division-1 college football several teams can be counted out at the start of the season, because they play in a "mid-major" conference. Clearly very few games matter in a college football season when there is an uneven playing field from the start. What's the point of being a Division-1 football team if you have no chance to be named champion of Division-1?

With my format every team makes the playoffs.

Now before you go crazy and say, "That's not rational!" or "How does that make the regular season matter?!" hear me out.

The NCAA tournament for college basketball lasts about one month. There are 64 teams and each round eliminates half of the remaining field (64 to 32 to 16 etc...). There are currently 120 Division-1 football programs. As of 2013, this number will grow to 124 with the addition of four schools: University of South Alabama, University of Texas State- San Marcos, University of Texas at San Antonio, and University of Massachusetts Amherst. Two more schools have announced future plans to join Division-1. If the total number of schools can reach 128, there would be enough teams for an even playoff bracket. That would eliminate bye weeks, thus leveling the playing field. No team would have extra rest.

The regular season is used for seeding with strength of schedule as the primary tiebreaker. A full 12 game season occurs in non-playoff years. During championship seasons, an abbreviated schedule can be played so as to continue playing traditional rivalry games and so on. That gives roughly 17 games to play your way into your seed for the tournament, when that time comes.

Since football is extremely physical there can only be one game played per week in the playoffs. This would mean that the playoffs would last seven weeks. If championship seasons had five regular season games and seven weeks of playoff games, no additional games are added to the college football schedule. This means no added stress will stem from the new format. Once teams are eliminated from the playoffs they can schedule exhibitions with other eliminated teams if they desire to continue playing. Another option would be a slightly longer regular season. Instead of five games perhaps seven would be acceptable.

One major problem is the loss of conference championships. These championships would not be played anymore, which potentially eliminates revenue for conferences that play poorly in the playoff. This would also eliminate meaningless bowl games.

Many people argue that bowl games are a treat for the athletes after a long season of hard work. However, I would find very little reward as a player to enroll and play at a school in Florida, only to head to Idaho to play in the MPCcomputers.com Bowl following the regular season. Likewise, nothing would make a four year starter at USC feel better about themselves than topping off a disappointing 7-5 season in the PAC-12 with a trip to Louisville, KY for the Papajohns.com Bowl. My instant respone to bowl games is that they are an artificial pat on the back for teams that did not accomplish their goals. Some bowl games matter, but most of them change names more than one can keep track. Bowl games are discontinued while new ones are created.

This system could not only provide a more accurate national champion, but it could become the most intriguing tournament in the country. Many conference commissioners would oppose this move because it makes their job obselete. Conferences would not matter all that much anymore under this new format. College football would no doubt generate more revenue with a radical change to their playoff format such as this one. With that said, the NCAA has to decide how badly a playoff is needed. All the statistics show that people watch the bowl games; all of them. So fans can complain as much as they want. The only way a legitimate playoff format happens is if the ratings drop substantially. Until that happens we will be arguing over third place or fifth place, so get ready!

THE REAL TALENTS AND PHONIES OF THE MUSIC WORLD EDITION 1

~Mike Wolcott

     It’s hard to tell what’s real in the world of music.  Popular artists seem to all look like supermodels, and many don’t sound quite right when you hear them live. In this article, I’ve taken a batch of popular musical artists from different genres and categorized each of them as a “real talent” or a phony.  Before reading, please understand that my determinations were based strictly on musical talent.  How big of a role do these artists play in the composition or betterment of the music that they play?  I wouldn’t judge a golfer on how well they shoot a basketball, so I’m not going to judge a musical artist on how well they dance, how marketable their image is, or how large their breasts are.  I titled this article “Edition 1” because there is a strong possibility that you'll see an article like this in the future (with different artists of course).  Anyway I hope you have as much fun reading this as I had writing it.  Saddle up partner!

    

Tim McGraw


     Tim McGraw is one of the luckiest men in the world.  He’s lucky to be married to Faith Hill, and even luckier to be as famous as he is with as little talent as he has. McGraw contributes almost nothing to his own albums. The melodies, music, and words to his songs are written entirely by “professional” songwriters.  For example, the song “Live like You Were Dying,” a tune McGraw is famous for, was written by Tim Nichols and Craig Wiseman.  Not only does he not write his own music, but McGraw is also not a particularly good singer or guitar player (which even he admits).  The only thing McGraw brings to the table is his look. Women find him attractive, and he appeals to men because of his blue collar appearance. McGraw himself probably chuckles on a daily basis when he thinks of the amount of unwarranted adoration he receives. The masses may be fooled but I’m not, Tim McGraw is a hoax.


FINAL DECISION: PHONY

Dave Matthews

    
     There are millions of great musicians and singers in the world, but it’s difficult to find people who can write good songs.  A great songwriter has an extremely elusive talent; they can come up with a catchy riff, a great melody, and/or great lyrics.  In my opinion, Dave Matthews is a phenomenal songwriter from both a lyrical and musical standpoint.  He’s not the most technically skilled guitarist, but his creativity and unorthodox playing result in some very clever musical ideas.  For examples of
his exceptional songwriting ability, check out the catchy/unique guitar riffs in “What Would You Say” and “Satellite,” or the poignant words of “Two Step” and “Crush.”  With those tunes in mind, I do realize that what I consider a great song may not be considered a great song by someone else. Dave Matthews is one of the most polarizing artists of his generation, not everyone is a fan of the songs that he composes.  Nevertheless, even Dave’s harshest critics must concede that the man writes unique songs that are enjoyed by millions. His music is not for everyone, but there’s no denying that Dave Matthews is a one of a kind talent.



FINAL DECISION: REAL TALENT

Beyonce



     Let’s start with the positives; Beyonce is a smoking hot babe with a great voice. In 2012, she was named People magazine’s most beautiful woman. While I don’t agree that she’s the most beautiful woman in the world (topic for another blog?), I will say that she is the most attractive person mentioned in today’s article. With that said, her looks do not make her a musical talent. When listening to a song, it matters not what the artist looks like. In regards to songwriting, most of her songs are “co-written,” which in her case means that she is given writing credit along with about six other writers/producers. Don’t let this fool you into thinking she’s a songwriter, the industry is giving her credit for minimal contributions to the songwriting process. Beyonce knows as much about a Major scale as my dog Skippy knows about Rocket Science.  As far as her vocals go, I will admit that she’s a good singer (check out “Best Thing I Never Had” live from the Jimmy Fallon show), but so are a lot of people.  Go to any college in the world and you’ll find an abundance of people who can sing.  Beyonce’s voice is not distinct enough to consider her a “real talent” based on vocals alone (unlike say Frank Sinatra, whose voice is unmistakable).  Singing is overrated anyway; the true musical greats of the world are those who can compose a good tune.  I like Beyonce and would put a ring on her, but I’m not overly impressed with her musical ability.



 FINAL DECISION: PHONY, HOT

Paul McCartney



     I really didn’t have to explain this one, but I did anyway.  Paul McCartney is one of the most prolific and influential musicians of the past century. Think of a band you like. There’s a chance that that band was directly influenced in some way by the Beatles. If they weren’t directly influenced by the Beatles, they were influenced by other bands that were influenced by the Beatles. The Fab Four are the best selling artist of all-time with 1 billion albums sold worldwide. McCartney’s song “Yesterday” has been covered more than any other song in history. Paul has penned 32 number 1 singles, and many more top 40 singles. McCartney has experimented with different sounds, styles, time signatures, instrumentation, and chord progressions. Listen to the marked difference between songs “Got to Get You into My Life”, “Blackbird,” “Let it Be’, “Eleanor Rigby’, and “All my Loving”. Paul’s versatility is unmatched. He has written songs with sophisticated melodies/chords like “Michelle,” and straight ahead rock tunes like “Get Back.” Music historians credit the Beatles as helping to usher in music as we know it in the “modern era”. The Guinness book of World Records named Paul McCartney the “most successful musician and composer in popular music history.” The man is a musical genius and prodigy.  To say that you don’t like Paul is to say that you’re an idiot who knows nothing about music.


FINAL DECISION: REAL TALENT

Fergie

     Transitioning from Paul McCartney to Fergie is like going from a Porsche to a Prius. If the Black Eyed Peas were going to choose an untalented singer, you’d at least think they’d pick someone hot.  What exactly is Fergie’s contribution to the Black Eyed Peas? She doesn’t play an instrument, she doesn’t write songs, and she can’t sing (as evidenced by her Super Bowl performance). I guess somebody must find her attractive; otherwise she wouldn’t be in the band. I personally think that the Peas should replace Fergie with someone like Kim Kardashian. Kardashian has just as much musical talent (none), and is much hotter. Hell, why stop with Fergie? Why not replace the remaining Black Eyed Pea members with reality t.v. stars? Then instead of playing music, the Black Eyed Peas could become a reality show. This might be a good career move because clearly music is not their thing. I for one would be extremely grateful to never have to listen to “My Humps” again.


FINAL DECISION: PHONY



    
     Thank you for reading! A&M blog is on the verge of 1,000 views and we’re hoping that this article helps us achieve that milestone.  I would love to hear if you agree or disagree with the points that I’ve made in the article.  My main goal was to do an honest evaluation of the talent level of these five popular artists from a musical standpoint.  The end was result was the exposure of three artists for what they are, images used to sell records. I realize that I was very critical in some cases, but in no way am I telling anyone to stop listening to Beyonce, Tim McGraw, Fergie, or the likes. If you enjoy a song, who cares if the artist wrote it or not? I was simply pointing out the fact that the phonies in this article do not possess extraordinary musical ability. Please don’t mistake my decisions on individual artists as a criticism for “their” music. I may be calling the artists themselves a non-talent, but the music they play is not inherently worse. This is because even their music is written and produced by “real talents’. It’s the writers and producers for these artists who make them who they are. Fergie may be the one giving the seductive look on the CD cover, but it’s the musicians creating her music behind the scenes that are the real talents. One of the phonies I mentioned, Beyonce, can sing. So can my 7 th grade music teacher.  Unless they have a truly distinctive voice, singers are very replaceable. This is especially true in the age of “Pro Tools,” which is recording software that could make my Mother sound like Robert Goulet.  Anyway, I hope that you enjoyed this article and look out for future editions!  If you have an artist that you’d like me to analyze let me know!

Mike Wolcott

FINAL DECISION: REAL TALENT