The NCAA says it will be considering 60+ methods for determining a football champion via playoff games. My recommendation for the BCS is a 4-team playoff using the top 4-ranked teams, plus a "play-in" game (or two) in case there's an undefeated team (or two) that didn't rank top-4. The "play-in" games, if there are any, would be played the week before.
So, let's say at the end of the football season (after conference championship games and before bowl games), Alabama is ranked # USC #2, Ohio State #3, Texas #4, Boise State #5, and Utah State #6. And suppose both Boise State and Utah are unbeaten. Boise State would play Ohio State and Utah would play Texas in "play-in" games. The Ohio/Boise winner would then play USC, and the Texas/Utah winner would play Alabama. The winners of these two games would play for the championship.
So basically, the "play-in" games would enable an undefeated team to replace (by beating) the 3rd- or 4th-ranked teams in the 4-team playoff.
The "play-in" game(s) would be played at the home site of the higher ranked team(s) or at another site of their choosing that's available on short notice, or tentatively.
"Play-in" games would not be bowl games, although, as a consolation prize, one (or two) of the lesser bowls would have an arrangement where they take the loser(s) of the "play-in" game(s). But the two semifinal games of the playoff would be major bowl games, as would the championship game, determined on a rotating basis.
Any play-in games would take place around Christmas. The semifinals would be played around New Year's, and the championship around a week later. There are probably some good, juicy names out there already for what to call these three games--oh, how about Bowl Championship Series!
Of course, it's theoretically possible that some year there'd be 3 or 4 or even more undefeated teams ranked below #4. Draw the line at the top four of these, and put them up against #1 through #4--lowest ranked vs. highest ranked and so on, in such a way that "play-in" slot essentially morphs morer or less into a quarterfinals round. And the #1-ranked team gets the lone bye if there are exactly 3 unbeatens ranked below #4.
ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS
Possible objections to this system include: A) it decreases the # of official BCS games from 5 to 3. But most fans by now probably attach little importance to any hoopla surrounding the 4 BCS games that are extraneous to determining the national championship. If they do, they are delusional. And they could treat the play-ins like a sort of quasi-bowl game.
Possible objection B): a minor conference team would be financial setback for major bowl organizers, and compel fans of "play-in" game teams to book travel plans on short notice for their bowl games. But minor conference champs who become Cinderella stories would likely attract a larger national following, and airlines might offer special discounts to fans to travel to the bowl game location.
ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE FEATURES
Avoid potentially somewhat disputable national champ game matches/results by preventing intra-conference meetings in championship game if the teams have already played that season (including their conference championship game). The results of these games tend to be either redundant or contradictory. So if there are two teams from the same conference ranked anywhere from #1 through #4, and they've already played each other, they would be matched up in a semifinal. No need to worry about 3+ teams from the same conference ranked in the top4--it's not going to happen.
A possible additional feature: make the championship game team selection involve fan participation to an extent. The highest-seeded team to emerge victorious from the semifinal games and any (other) undefeated team would be automatically invited to the championship game. But a semifinal winner from the #2 vs. #3 bracket, provided they had no "play-in" game win on their resume, could be vetoed by a fan vote. Maybe the won a poorly played game. The potential replacement could be any winner of another major bowl game which had not lost during the season to the prospective title game opponent (including conference champ games).
The vote could be done by phone a la American Idol, although it should be made a bit difficult to pull off a veto. Make the phone call a yea/nay for the team under review, then, if nay, branch it to multiple-choice for the other major bowl winners. To make a change, at this point, at least 2/3 of the votes would have to be against that team under review, and a majority of the other-team votes would have to be for one particular team. If the vote result is 2/3 nay but not a majority for any one potential replacement, have a subsequent runoff between the original team under review and the top two vote-getting options (all treated equally), with the highest vote-getter obtaining the championship game invitation.
This "Barabbasic" feature would bring back the importance of multiple bowl games, as an impressive winner of such would conceivably have a chance at playing for the championship--if voted-in by the fans. It harkens back to the pre-BCS era when there was excitement in the air as the victors of the major bowls each chanted "we're #1", and then the AP & UPI polls decided the next day.
The improvement is that with this system, yes the fans may play a role, and yes the polls do play a role in setting things up,, but the final result is decided on the field in a championship game.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Ideas for Occupiers
Here are a couple of ideas for the Occupy Wall Street movement:Secret Ballot and Trust Bust--both pertaining to Capitol Hill, Washington D.C.
BILL TROUBLE
In the United States Congress, as in virtually any legislative body, there are two kinds of bills: those that pass and those that do not. That is the key difference. A bill that passes becomes law and effects policy. One that does not pass is essentially irrelevant. As the joke goes, “Close” only counts in horseshoes, tidddly winks and hand grenades.
You can talk all you want about raising consciousness for a cause, getting sponsors, etc. but when the bill fails to make it, these efforts are in vain.
Nor does a bill that almost passes achieve anything tangibly more than one that is utterly ignored.
Legislators communicate with each other about voting likelihoods—this is allowed—so that they might often vote in ways that are politically advantageous, whereas if the fate of a bill hinged on their vote, they would go the other way.
A savvy politician may pretend to support environmental preservation, for example, by voting for a forest protection bill that has no chance of passage, in order to curry favor of the "green" constituency.
Congressional turnover in the House of Reps. assures that those bills that legislators do not want to pass (due to the moneyed power interest groups' control over them) will wallow around in various committees, possibly appear to be gaining momentum, but fail to get enough supports to become law. It may appear that the bill's passage is an achievable outcome, but before you know it, whoops, congressional elections have arrived, and the process must start all over again, minus, in all likelihood, several sponsors.
SECRET BALLOT
It's clear that Congresspersons are frequently made to feel beholden to powerful special interests in determining how they vote. The best way to minimize the role of lobbyists is to remove the possibility of a vote being "bought". This is doable by instituting a system of confidential balloting--like is standard practice in trial by jury, and was like used in classical Athens, Greece. It would enable a Congressperson to vote his/her conscience without the pressure of accountability to the special interests.
The Constitution can be construed as providing an opening. Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2; states that "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." A Congressperson who reports repeated intimidation from strong-arming lobbyists or from other politicians should be able to be protected via a secret ballot.
The entrenched, standard policy of posting the vote result in Congress on a name-by-name basis, applies, constitutionally, only to votes following a Presidential veto (U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Sect.7, P'grphs 1-2). So Congress could enact a rule giving itself confidentiality in routine matters. An amendment could subsequently be adopted to cover veto-overrides.
Granted there would be no accountability to John Q. Constituent, either, but nobody really believes their voice matters anymore anyway unless they're tapped into the Lobbocracy, so this proposal might just level the playing field.
TRUST BUSTING
If Congress can't reform itself, it may be time to "break up" the parties—Dems., and Repubs., because they are too big and overconfident (as well as over-cautious), decadent, set in their ways, uncreative, reactive rather than pro-active, and so on.
It's a healthy thing to do—like pruning a bush that has grown too tall too fast. Cut it back some and you might notice how it tends to sprout multiple shoots where snipped—growing back fuller and thence more sturdy and more substantial, less susceptible to wind/snow/ice/pest damage.
Such an action would probably come about as some sort of antitrust argument in the courts--leading ultimately to a Supreme Court ruling to break up the parties like they did AT&T. Clearly they represent a duopoly of the business of political governance. To illustrate, recall the treatment of H. Ross Perot's independent presidential candidacy a few years ago. Even though he was leading in the polls, the two parties conspired to keep him out of debates.
SALARY EQUANIMITY
Towards greater economic equality: one goal of a fair society could be to establish a salary structure that reflects the reality of the workplace. Rank occupations according to how odious, tedious, exhausting, dangerous (to self & others), stressful they are to the average person. Compensate workers accordingly. Also factor-in a position’s complexity, training requirements, etc. And holders of so-called “dead-end” jobs would be rewarded for their dedication and devotion.
Salary structures are not carved into stone, as the labor union movement has proven.
P.S. Note the reality TV show cerca 2008 where the bosses tried doing the dirty work for a week or even a day, with considerable difficulty. It's coming back on in 2012. .
BILL TROUBLE
In the United States Congress, as in virtually any legislative body, there are two kinds of bills: those that pass and those that do not. That is the key difference. A bill that passes becomes law and effects policy. One that does not pass is essentially irrelevant. As the joke goes, “Close” only counts in horseshoes, tidddly winks and hand grenades.
You can talk all you want about raising consciousness for a cause, getting sponsors, etc. but when the bill fails to make it, these efforts are in vain.
Nor does a bill that almost passes achieve anything tangibly more than one that is utterly ignored.
Legislators communicate with each other about voting likelihoods—this is allowed—so that they might often vote in ways that are politically advantageous, whereas if the fate of a bill hinged on their vote, they would go the other way.
A savvy politician may pretend to support environmental preservation, for example, by voting for a forest protection bill that has no chance of passage, in order to curry favor of the "green" constituency.
Congressional turnover in the House of Reps. assures that those bills that legislators do not want to pass (due to the moneyed power interest groups' control over them) will wallow around in various committees, possibly appear to be gaining momentum, but fail to get enough supports to become law. It may appear that the bill's passage is an achievable outcome, but before you know it, whoops, congressional elections have arrived, and the process must start all over again, minus, in all likelihood, several sponsors.
SECRET BALLOT
It's clear that Congresspersons are frequently made to feel beholden to powerful special interests in determining how they vote. The best way to minimize the role of lobbyists is to remove the possibility of a vote being "bought". This is doable by instituting a system of confidential balloting--like is standard practice in trial by jury, and was like used in classical Athens, Greece. It would enable a Congressperson to vote his/her conscience without the pressure of accountability to the special interests.
The Constitution can be construed as providing an opening. Article 1, Section 6, Paragraph 2; states that "and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." A Congressperson who reports repeated intimidation from strong-arming lobbyists or from other politicians should be able to be protected via a secret ballot.
The entrenched, standard policy of posting the vote result in Congress on a name-by-name basis, applies, constitutionally, only to votes following a Presidential veto (U.S. Constitution Art. 1, Sect.7, P'grphs 1-2). So Congress could enact a rule giving itself confidentiality in routine matters. An amendment could subsequently be adopted to cover veto-overrides.
Granted there would be no accountability to John Q. Constituent, either, but nobody really believes their voice matters anymore anyway unless they're tapped into the Lobbocracy, so this proposal might just level the playing field.
TRUST BUSTING
If Congress can't reform itself, it may be time to "break up" the parties—Dems., and Repubs., because they are too big and overconfident (as well as over-cautious), decadent, set in their ways, uncreative, reactive rather than pro-active, and so on.
It's a healthy thing to do—like pruning a bush that has grown too tall too fast. Cut it back some and you might notice how it tends to sprout multiple shoots where snipped—growing back fuller and thence more sturdy and more substantial, less susceptible to wind/snow/ice/pest damage.
Such an action would probably come about as some sort of antitrust argument in the courts--leading ultimately to a Supreme Court ruling to break up the parties like they did AT&T. Clearly they represent a duopoly of the business of political governance. To illustrate, recall the treatment of H. Ross Perot's independent presidential candidacy a few years ago. Even though he was leading in the polls, the two parties conspired to keep him out of debates.
SALARY EQUANIMITY
Towards greater economic equality: one goal of a fair society could be to establish a salary structure that reflects the reality of the workplace. Rank occupations according to how odious, tedious, exhausting, dangerous (to self & others), stressful they are to the average person. Compensate workers accordingly. Also factor-in a position’s complexity, training requirements, etc. And holders of so-called “dead-end” jobs would be rewarded for their dedication and devotion.
Salary structures are not carved into stone, as the labor union movement has proven.
P.S. Note the reality TV show cerca 2008 where the bosses tried doing the dirty work for a week or even a day, with considerable difficulty. It's coming back on in 2012. .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
