ESPN CFB Analyst Makes Bias Comment on Live TV

During the LIVE broadcast at 8:30PM, of the ESPN BCS Countdown Show; on November 3, 2013; Hosted by Rece Davis along with in-studio analysts; Jesse Palmer and David Pollack along with via satellite analysts Kirk Herbstreit; a VERY BIAS comment was verbalized across the air waves without delay or being bleeped out by the sensors at ESPN. This comment or statement was given by David Pollack within the first 10 minutes of the airing and rundown of the current BCS ranking in reverse order from 25 to 1. The rankings as of November 3, 2013 revealed that (2) Non-BCS/Non-AQ/ NCAA/ FBS members Fresno State and Northern Illinois were both ranked respectively and subjectively in order, Fresno State #16 from the Mountain West Conference and Northern Illinois #18 from the Mid-American Conference, both ahead of BCS/AQ member Louisville #20. Both Fresno State and Northern Illinois are respectively in the group of 0-loss programs currently, and no on talks about their success in the 2013 FBS season.

David Pollack’s was asked by the host Rece Davis; what he thought about the current rankings. One of the first comments or statements made by David Pollack was “that the human voters of the USA Today Coaches Poll and the Harris Poll voters, need to re-examine their ranking process in how they ranked Fresno State and Northern Illinois ahead of AQ/BCS member Louisville. They should not be ranked ahead of an BCS/AQ conference leader.” This comment more than significantly implies that David Pollack is VERY BIAS against all or any Non-BCS/Non-AQ conference and programs and they do not DESERVE to be ranked higher than any BCS/AQ conference program leader. David Pollack is ultimately suggesting that the human voters and members from the USA Today Coaches Poll of 60 coaches and the 122 members from The Harris Poll should rank both Fresno State and Northern Illinois lower than Louisville. Ultimately suggesting that Fresno State, Northern Illinois or any other Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football program are not deserving of a BCS bowl berth, the large sums of money that comes with participating in those bowls no matter if they both end the season with 0-losses. This comment also suggest that the human voters NEED to manipulate their rankings or voting process to ultimately affect both Fresno State and Northern Illinois. Not only affect their rank but also affect their earning potential, recruitment and promotion of their more than credible football FBS programs, coaches and players. The ranking process or voting process is 100% subjective with NO true criteria to rank FBS/NCAA programs 1 through 25. Research performed by myself and published in my book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth” examined both human subjective voting processes and determined that there is NO true criteria or process to vote FBS programs 1 through 25 and that their is a definitive bias among the voters against Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS programs, both with coaches and human voters. His direct comment also implies and suggests that David Pollack is intentionally obstructing both Fresno State, Northern Illinois or any Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS member from the the possibility of potentially earning, a right so deserving spot, to compete for the BCS National Championship Game or any of the double digit mulit-million dollar BCS bowl games; which would significantly provide any Non-BCS/Non-AQ conference and programs credibility, notoriety recruiting leverage and more exposure to the institution and their athletic programs..

Yes, it is David Pollack’s opinion, but an opinion with vested interest, negative intentions, significant intent to decrease the opportunity for those two football programs to increase their financial well being and to influence subjective voters to vote his way per his opinion. It’s very interesting that ESPN who employs, supports and seeks the advice from sports analysts such as David Pollack, allowed that statement to be aired LIVE and no one challenging his comment. Since ESPN analysts have an direct avenue via the airwaves of LIVE TV during games, LIVE ESPN TV shows, LIVE Sportcenter’s or LIVE radio shows, to voice their opinion which could ultimately be subliminal in nature, but also effective towards those who possess decision making skills when significantly LARGE sums of money are at stake which could assist those conferences and programs. David Pollack’s comment is so significantly and subjectively BIAS that when future BCS rankings are revealed, starting with the November 10, 2013 rankings, could ultimately affect both Fresno State, Northern Illinois and any Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS member and keep them from playing for the National Championship or another large multi-million dollar BCS Bowl game.

If I were the the President, Chancellor, Athletic Director or Head Football Coach of either of these two institutions, I would be on the phone to my legal counsel and starting legal action against ESPN, ABC, the BCS Countdown Show and naming David Pollack as part of a defamation lawsuit and or antitrust law suit to impede my ability to be recognized as a credible football program, participate in a lucrative BCS Bowl game and more. David Pollacks comment could ultimately change and impede the earning opportunities for both Fresno State and/or Northern Illinois as the 2013 season concludes. The only factors that separates the BCS/AQ/NCAA/FBS conferences and programs from the Non-AQ/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS conferences and programs is MONEY, TELEVISION CONTRACTS and ATHLETIC BUDGETS. All 125 FBS programs in the 2013 season all play by the same rules, same game time, receive the same time outs, receive the same amount of scholarships(unless on probation by the NCAA), score the same amount of points during games, a touchdown is still 6 points, a FG is still 3 points and so on.The skills and knowledge of both the coaches and players are what determines the success of their season and the possibility of earning an extra game which includes extra revenue, exposure and recruiting opportunities. This comment by David Pollack could be viewed as damaging to the future earning potential of both Fresno State, Northern Illinois and other Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football programs.

The Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/VBS conference and programs are already significantly at a severe disadvantage when it comes to competing for a national championship, a larger financial bowl berth, recruiting and earning the respect from sports analysts in various and multiple markets. The Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS programs surely do not need a high profile sports program on ESPN, which is aired across the nation on multiple satellite and cable organizations to make their process any harder to earn credibility than what it already is at a significant dis-advantage. The comment, verbalized and made by David Pollack makes it significantly that much harder now for the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS programs or conferences to receive any credit for their current season accolades, when you have one nationally re-known sports program and company allowing statements such as David Pollacks to be aired LIVE. It’s very interesting that if you look at all the panels of ESPN analysts (and not just ESPN) across their college football shows in which they air, there is NOT one member who speaks on behalf of the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football programs to promote them as credible programs and conferences. I would love the opportunity to be part of that panel and promote the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS conferences and programs. Challenging the so called “experts” to their intellect and knowledge. I would make sure that the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football programs had a LOUD VOICE to be heard. Even Boise State with the success they had, and still have, could not even secure a BCS Championship Game with the 17 year’s success with the second highest win loss percentage among all FBS programs.

In closing, I suggest and hope that ESPN go back and watch the tape of that November 3, 2013 BCS Countdown Show and see how close I am to what David Pollack suggests and says. It’s very sad that each year there are competitive Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football programs that earn 0-loss seasons but never given TRUE and meaningful support by the media or opportunity to compete for the national championship. Even with the future 4-team College Football Playoff format in 2014, we will still see 4 BCS/AQ/NCAA/FBS programs securing and competing for the college football FBS title and the Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS programs and conferences still on the outside looking in. In my opinion, David Pollack should have documentation in his file and or terminated for his malicious intent to decrease the financial earning opportunity for Fresno State, Northern Illinois and other Non-BCS/Non-AQ/NCAA/FBS football programs. I do not think an apology is in order.

I only report the facts and truths……. I know I am not the only college football fan who watched the ESPN BCS Countdown Show and heard what David Pollack said  on that specific date and time, with what he was implying and suggesting with confidence.

I look forward to your comments…. and questions. Follow me on twitter @cfbpoexpert


College Football Playoff Selection Committee: $50+ Million Dollar Decision

After giving this some hard thought and consideration after the announcement of the future College Football Playoff (CFP) and the selection of the 13 committee members who have been given the honor to make a $50+ MILLION dollar decision, I have decided to post a comment.  Since I did sole author and self publish a book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model, which examined the selection of 16 FBS programs from a utilitarian aspect, with no vested interests, no bias, no favortism and considered all eligible FBS programs to be considered and reviewed to be selected and seeded into the field of 16, I am more than qualified to offer some expert-like analysis on this topic. This groups selection to this committee is to definitively select, without bias, 4 FBS programs out of 127 FBS programs to compete for $50+ million dollar and be called the 2014 NCAA Men’s FBS Football National Champion. How can this group of committee members provide a Stuart Mills approach when selecting these 4 FBS programs, knowing fully that every BCS/AQ conference and member will always be in the forefront of their mindset?

I am not sure if many of our sports journalist are aware of the ever changing landscape within college football, but starting in the 2014 FBS Football season, there will be 127 FBS programs with the addition of Old Dominion to the CUSA and Appalachian State to the Sun Belt Conference. By 2015, there will be 128 FBS programs with the addition of UNC-Charlotte to the CUSA. By the 2014 FBS season, we are entrusting this committee of 13 members with no political ties, to select just 3.1% of the field at the FBS football program level, who compete under the same level of the NCAA, to compete in the first “so-called” College Football Playoff and an extra $50+ Million Dollars. The most interesting finding is, all 127 FBS teams compete under the same NCAA umbrella, play by the same rules but are classified and separated by athletic budgetary lines. Those who have the money will be significantly given consideration to increase that revenue by participating in this style of playoff format. Sounds very Democritus to me.

The ultimate question that needs to be addressed is, the qualifications of this 13 member panel in which they were elected to make the ethical decision to select the right 4 FBS programs, without bias, making sure their relationships with other athletic directors, head coaches, conference commissioners; especially the power conference brokers such as Commissioner, Mr. Mike Slive; from the SEC (Southeastern Conference), Commissioner, Mr. Jim Delaney from the Big 10 and BCS Chairman, Mr. Bill Hancock out of the back pockets and keeping their ears to make sure their conference programs are considerably looked at to compete for the first ever CFB playoff format. On Thursday October 17, 2013; the local newspaper Greater Hazelton Standard Speaker, published an article written by Blair Kerkhoff from the Kansas City Star ” College Football Playoff committee officially unveiled”. The list was announced and published the 13 member committee who will have the job of making the selection. Examining this committee at first, we notice high profile names who are serving in roles as current athletic directors or past athletic directors & head football coaches,  a Lieutenant and former superintendent in the United States Air Force Academy, the NCAA executive vice president, a vice chancellor, a big name NFL and NCAA quarterback legend, a big name basketball commissioner, a USA Today sports writer and professor and ex-Secretary of State.

With all due respect to those selected to be part of this very difficult process and selection, I can foresee that all four spots will be filled with BCS/AQ programs.  The 67+ Non-BCS/Non-AQ programs will have to meet or exceed some lengthy criteria which will never be met since, its possible that this selection committee can be influenced by their higher centers of influence and relationships within their conferences, since $50+ million dollars is on the decision making line. The names were revealed and they are:

Mr. Jeff Long: Arkansas Vice Chancellor, Athletic Director and CFP Committee Chair(SEC and BCS/AQ member) BCS/AQ leads 1-0 on the panel.

Mr. Barry Alvarez: Wisconsin Athletic Director(BIG 10 and BCS/AQ member) BCS/AQ leads 2-0 on the panel.

Mr. Pat Haden: USC Athletic Director (PAC 12 and BCS/AQ member) BCS/AQ leads 3-0 on the panel.

Mr. Oliver Luck: West Virginia Athletic Director (Big 12 and BCS/AQ member) BCS/AQ leads 4-0 on the panel.

Mr. Archie Manning: NFL Great and Mississippi Alumni (SEC influence and BCS/AQ influence) BCS/AQ leads 5-0 on the panel.

Mr. Tom Osbourne: Former Nebraska Head Football Coach, Athletic Director and Congressman (Big 12/Big 10 and BCS/AQ member). BCS/AQ leads 6-0 on the panel.

Mr. Tom Radakovich: Clemson Athletic Director (ACC and BCS/AQ member). BCS/AQ leads 7-0 on the panel.

Mr. Tyrone Willingham: Former Head Football Coach for Notre Dame, Washington and Stanford (IND & PAC 12 influence with BCS/AQ member) BCS/AQ leads 8-0 on the panel.

Mr. Tom Jernstedt: Former NCAA Executive Vice President and Oregon graduate (PAC 12 influence/BCS member) must remain impartial. BCS/AQ leads 9-0 on the panel.

Mrs. Condolezza Rice: Ex Secretary of State, Stanford Professor and former Stanford Provost (PAC 12 influence/BCS member) BCS/AQ leads 10-0 on the panel.

Mr. Steve Wieberg: USA Today Sports Writer and Missouri graduate (Big12 and SEC influence/BCS member). BCS/AQ leads 11-0 on the panel.

Mr. Mike Tranghese: Big East Commissioner and retired (Non BCS/Non-AQ member and AAC influence) One of two members for the NON-BCS/Non-AQ members. BCS still leads 11-1 on the panel.

Lieutenant General Mike Gould: Former Superintendent of the United State Air Force Academy (Thank you for your service to our great nation), (MWC and Non-BCS/Non-AQ) One and only active member to argue and debate for the Non-BCS/Non-AQ programs to get one spot in the playoffs. BCS/AQ programs win the panel votes 11-2.

The most immediate thought that came to my mind is; were these members selected based upon knowledge and experience as being part of a football playoff selection committees previous or name credibility/recognition based upon names associated with the committee to provide the College Football Playoff (CFP) viability and recognition to ease the fans request to some form of a NCAA college football playoff format? While reading the published article, Jeff Long, Arkansas AD said “we represent all of college football” (Kerkhoff, 2013). If you represented all of college football then would there no be EQUAL representation among the selected members based upon BCS/AQ and Non-BCS/Non-AQ, compared to a significantly weighted towards the BCS/AQ conferences and programs. Further quotes by Jeff Long state, “In this task, we don’t not (that’s how it was printed in the article) represent any one school, conference or region. Each of us will represent college football in its totality” (Kerkhoff, 2013). Jeff Long goes on to being quoted by Kerkhoff as saying ” when we serve on this committee we’re expected to check our loyalties and affiliations at the door” (Kerkhoff, 2013).  It seems to me that the Arkansas AD has 13-15 direct phone numbers, all SEC and BCS related, that can call him and influence his decision making process when making a final selection. My thought is, how can these committee members check their loyalties at the door and be impartial when the outside influences have direct access to their phone number and email address to directly, but indirectly make comments or suggestions to or on. The ultimate test will be for Mr. Jeff Long and the other committee members, is to their integrity to the conference, ethical decisions making skills, testing their higher centers of influence, especially if any of these athletic directors wish to advance their careers or change FBS schools, and by making the right and fair decisions to select the 4 programs who earned their way into the playoff format.

With all due respect to USA Today’s Sports writer; Mr. Steve Wieberg, I am curious how your “covering 250-300 college football games not watching them as a fan but more analytically” (Kerkhoff,2013), qualifies you to be part of this committee? Covering and writing about those games, which I can definitively say that 95% of them are BCS/AQ games, does not make you an expert, just a writer doing a job. Me personally, I have examined  and analyzed multiple categorical variables and variables within variables to author and publish my book to select a group of 16 FBS programs, and even then there were some tough decisions to make on the seeding and selection process. When you examine 25,000+ data points from 1996 to the present, within college football at the FBS level, and not just the games you covered, then please talk to me. Facts are the facts. Decisions like this should not be influenced by name and program recognition, but selected and seeded based upon accomplishments and outcomes by the student athletes who participate and make split second decisions in games and the coaching staffs who make timely adjustments during the game or during the week to prepare their team for games on a weekly basis in this 12-game college football season.

One committee member, in my opinion, has no business being part of this committee. With all due respect to Secretary of State; Mrs. Condoleezza Rice, how and why were you selected? Is this the At-large, un-bias selection committee member who can keep the legal aspects of the decision making process in the forefront, staving of any possibility of an antitrust lawsuit from the Non-BCS/Non AQ members and conferences against the power brokers of college football? She was a politician and lobbyist as well, she can use her legal influences, charm and communication skills to persuade committee members too.

Yes, the names selected gives the committee name recognition credibility only, but no true validity to the selection of 3.1% of the field. There are many questions that need to be addressed before this committee is to convene and  to start making the $50+ Milllion dollar decisions. Yes, there decisions are going be tough ones, tougher than determining if the student athlete is eligible to play, did we meet compliance this week, are there any recruiting violations, which TV contract are we getting this week and so forth. This committees toughest decision is how can they remain true to all 127 FBS programs in a Stuart Mills approach, without being swayed, convinced and bias to their own conferences, programs and alma maters.

The ultimate objective of this committee is to select the right and “just due” 4 FBS programs, not the most notorious programs based upon what the so called “experts” from ESPN, FOX, USA Today, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, Yahoo Sports or any other sports affiliates who show, print or televise multiple college football shows and experts say during the season. Experts who use the “crystal ball” method to select who will win the game, who should be ranked and in which order and who will be playing in the BCS National Championship Game in January 2014, when all the games have not been played. If I had known, they were seeking applicants to be committee members, I would have submitted my vitae and book as evidence to be considered as a committee member.

My objective was not to slander or make light of these 13 members on the committee, but to significantly point out to the sports world and fans, that this committee is BCS/AQ HEAVY and that every college football fan knows that the first 4 FBS programs selected and seeded, will be BCS/AQ programs. Thus, not considering any of the more than qualified Non-BCS/Non AQ program, whom will again, will be on the outside looking in again and again. Did not the BCS process prove that the Non-BCS/Non AQ programs are not allowed to play on the same playground as the BCS/AQ programs when it comes to competing for the national championship? Have the fans not seen enough of the bias towards BCS/AQ conferences and programs in direct relationship to the (2) human subjective voter polls bias and BCS/AQ manipulation of the 6 computer programs. Seems to me that the Non-BCS/Non-AQ programs are just as deserving to compete for the 2014 NCAA Men’s FBS Football National Championship as the rest of the 127 FBS programs. I guess we will have to wait and see when the first 4 seeds are announced in over a year from now. Observing how the influence of sports writers, sports television shows, major television sports companies and the so-called “experts” use their microphones, air waves, televised shows and print, to verbalize the subliminal messages at the 13 committee members to select who they think should be the first 4 teams.

Kerkhoff, Blair. (2013). “College Football Playoff committee officially unveiled”. Greater Hazelton Standard Speaker, Thursday, October 17, 2013. Page B4.


Power Brokers of FBS College Football Forcing Hand of NCAA and Dr. Emmert

In a World Wide Web and/or newspaper article, posted in the The Indianapolis Star on July 25 2013, written by Mark Alesia, who was given a independent/exclusive interview to Dr. Mark Emmert, President of the NCAA, to discuss a future topic within college athletics that deals with changing the landscape of college football at the highest level. After reading and dissecting the article, it’s seems very apparent that the “powers that be”; the commissioners of the 5 major FBS conferences are starting to turn the screws on the NCAA asking for major changes or what they call “significant strategic advantages”(Alesia, 2013). College football at the FBS level possesses a governance model and rules that are to stringent  for them to operate under and follow for the student athletes. With all due respect to the NCAA and Dr. Emmert, stand your ground along with the remaining 280+ NCAA Division 1 institutions.

“NCAA President, Mark Emmert agrees with major-college football commissioners demanding substantial change in the Indianapolis based association, and has called a summit of Division I schools in January” (Alesia, 2013). Is Dr. Emmert agreeing to this because of the media platform used by the power brokers to promote their campaign for change which would be hedonistic for them and them only?  It seems from my perspective that this means Dr. Emmert and the NCAA Division 1 programs, should succumb to the pressures of the 5 power brokers of college football commissioners in how college athletics for FBS football should operate. The message being sent by the power brokers is, we are generating all this revenue, we want changes and we want them now. Those with the money get to make the rules, promote change and only for what I consider a Democritus style of operating. The issues at hand that the 5 power broker conference commissioners  and 60 high profile FBS programs would like to implement, with no disregard to what the remaining 280+ FBS programs think are:

A. The SEC, B10, B12, ACC, P12 and Notre Dame want to eliminate the current governance model that they are under and create their own division of athletics, calling it Division IV (Alesia, 2013).

The governance model may possess many rules and could use some adjustments, but remember they all agreed to this as signing up to be a member of the NCAA to display the NCAA logo and brand. These are the rules that are to be followed by all. It seems that the power brokers are ready to start a coup and upset the grocery cart for the betterment of themselves and themselves only.

By allowing the power brokers and conferences to create their own division and create their own rules, you not only create a monster, but a “God like complex” monster with no governance, institutional control and all the money. College athletics is not Monopoly. However those with the most money, like the power brokers, get to make the rules, solicit large sponsors to increase revenue dollars to their ever growing financial bottom lines, recruit and pay the best student athletes regardless of academics, eliminate the Academic Progress Report(APR) which is part of the governance rules and these are just the major leverage points that would drive the wedge further between the “have” and the “have nots”. Also know as “BCS” and Non-BCS”.

Another point to not allowing this leverage and wedge between the BCS and Non-BCS programs and conferences is, this provides the power brokers a significant upper hand and stranglehold in the recruitment process of student athletes who would only see the money and prestige. The Non-BCS conferences would slowly fade away, like the old west.  All we would see is tumble weeds, no television coverage and limited media reporting. We all know that only the media follows winning and prominent programs. Credible Non-BCS programs like Boise State, Nevada, Louisiana Tech, Hawaii, BYU,  and Louisiana Lafayette to name a few there and others, will be forced to pay large exit fees, $$$$(money), from their current conference and forced to pay the large entrance fee to join one of the power five. The split and divide would also eliminate games scheduled between BCS and Non-BCS programs, thus creating a larger financial gap between the classifications. The arms race was already getting out of hand and is significantly getting further out of hand.  At what point do the Non-BCS conferences and programs say enough is enough? This is just like the roaring 20’s with all the gangsters calling the shots and everybody afraid because no one wants to challenge the power brokers. Even the police, governance model at that time, were afraid of the gangsters. Until they said enough was enough we are taking back some control of the bullies.

It seems that the power conferences and brokers are using the disparity in budget differential as a measurable categorical variable to be part of their elite and sense of entitlement style of operating. The comment made by Dr. Emmert states, “There’s a need to recognize there are Division 1 schools with $5 million athletic budgets and the $155 million athletic budgets, and trying to find a model that fits all of them is the enormous challenge right now” (Alesia, 2013).  This tells me that the power conferences and brokers want a devised  and regulated system based up financial budgets. If you don’t meet a certain budget requirement, then you belong to this group. This is more and more sounding like the English Premier Soccer League model, but with the relegation not determined by wins and losses but in how large your budget is. This part of the arms race for supremacy is starting to change the landscape of college football from equality, opportunity for a great education and association to those with all the money get to make the rules and tells everybody else, either join or you get left behind. This sounds like the middle ages, a King and his Kingdom with merry jesters and supporters (BCS conferences, power brokers and commissioners) and everyone else are the peasants (Non-BCS programs, conferences and non football FBS schools) who have to scramble for scraps that the King’s throws out them in an effort just to kiss the hand or be in the presence of the King.

B. These 5 conferences plus more than likely Notre Dame, want to change the governance model in which all NCAA institutions follow and create their own governance model, rules and which would ultimately lead to their own private playoff system. Leaving the remaining 60+ FBS/CFB football programs to fend for themselves (Alesia, 2013).

Who will oversee the governance of the power conferences and their brokers? Was that not why they created the NCAA logo, rules and by laws to keep all on the same playing field. By allowing the power conferences to segregate themselves form the governance model will significantly increase the power they already have. The power conference main argument is  “there are 140 committees” (Emmert,2013) that makes decisions and feels that its spread to thin and decisions or changes take forever to be adopted. If there are too many committees, then create an 11 member committee who would have the best interest of ALL NCAA athletic programs and not those with all the money. The 11 member committee would act like the Chief Justices in the Supreme Court, knowledgeable and can make a Stuart Mills approach in the decision making process when things need to be addressed. Within that 11 member committee, they would have at least and no more than 4 staff members, not higher centers of influence who can sway the decision thought process. These 4 staff members are highly educated in the NCAA policy, procedures, academics, by laws, compliance, eligibility and all the rules and how to bring those rules up for a vote or discussion, using educated members of society to offer their knowledge on those specific topics with the best interest of all involved.

All the power brokers sees in front of them is the money they would generate to assist into offering their recruits and student athletes the stipend they so rightfully believe they should be getting or be distributed. This within itself would tip the scales in their favor in recruitment advantages. The power brokers and commissioners only see the fairness in which they would receive in increased support, advertising dollars to best suit their needs like a Democritus society and just say “yes we are seeking the best interests for all”. When in  reality, its all about them and how far they can distance themselves from the peasants.

C. The 5 power brokers WANT, not suggests, to provide $2-5K athletic stipends to all scholarship student athletes for the “full cost of attendance” (Alesia, 2013).

The one question that needs to be addressed to these power brokers is, what makes their student athletes significantly more important than the other student athletes who are being recruited by other NCAA Division 1 FBS programs? Since when did high school athletic talent, which is a great accomplishment within itself, become a financial right chip to be paid for? College athletics is not a job, its an opportunity to display your athletic talent and skills where by, you were allowed the opportunity to earn a quality education with cost covered by your athletic talents, which would assist you in obtaining knowledge. That knowledge which is provided by higher education professors and doctoral professors who are qualified to educate these young students and student athletes in the program of study in which they want to strive for as part of our working professional society.

The athletic stipend is a great idea, but is being used as a bargaining chip by the power brokers to draw a line in the sand. I would like to see athletic stipends be implemented, but implemented properly and with accountability on both sides of the table. I understand that student athletes can not work while on athletic scholarship to earn some extra cash. Maybe that governance rule needs to be addressed in addition to allowing the student athletes the ability to work 8 hours, one day a week to provide them with responsibility outside of education and athletic which will prepare them for a working class society. Everyone does not become a professional athlete. The price in which college athletics are measured by at this level, should not be by, what you do to win the national championship, but in how working towards a national championship in relationship to developing life skills, accountability, education and offering employment experiences to these student athletes makes them a more well rounded person.

If athletic stipends are going to be implemented then the power brokers cannot segregate themselves from the rest of the group. There should be a discussion on revenue sharing, like professional sports. If the power brokers are sincere in this idea of student athlete stipends, then I would be the first AD at this meeting in January asking them to consider revenue sharing and creating some form of accountability to the student athletes to earn those stipends.

D. Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delaney, states “he wants lifetime scholarships for athletes to finish their education and a non-athletic year for “at risk” students, followed by four years of eligibility” (Alesia, 2013).

Dear Mr. Delaney, with all due respect to your experience, knowledge and dedication of athletics, please explain to me by using peer reviewed journal articles that significantly supports that student athletes should be given a significant advantage over the general population student to be guaranteed a scholarship to complete their degree related field? I would be more than willing to read about it. Even the general population students seem to struggle academically and need to stop their education or return later when they are more mature. The key aspect we forget is that these are students, who are athletes, who need to have some educational knowledge to be part of our society if they part of the 99% who are not given the opportunity to play at the highest level of professional athletics. The student athlete is there to learn a degree related field which will prepare them for life and have something to fall back on when they stop their professional career or seek a career in a professional career environment.

If you want to provide lifetime scholarships to student athletes in addition to creating a non athletic year for “at risk” students, then it this needs to be offered to the whole student body and not just student athletes. As per the “at-risk” student athlete, then we should educate coaches to be more observant of academic abilities over their athletic talent in which they recruit. We need to stop mollycoddling the student athletes and make them accountable for their educational advancements. By offering the student athletes automatic scholarships and stipends sends the wrong message to future student athletes that, education is not important but your athletic skills guarantees you an automatic free education with no sense of urgency to learn academically.  I  totally understand that a large percentage of student and student athletes struggle on certain topics. They would not be considered as “at-risk” student athletes if they were not catered to on ever thing. Yes; assist, guide, help, tutor, studies halls, study groups and do whatever it takes to let them achieve the grade they need to earn in the classroom environment. The onus should be on the student athlete learning academically as possessing a great experience athletically.

E. What the power brokers have already lined up, ” the power football conferences have a 12-year, $5.6 Billion ($5,600,000,000.00) deal for television rights to the College Football Playoff starting with the 2015 season” (Alesia, 2013).

How is it the power brokers and the 5 major conferences can collaboratively line up a large 12-year, Billion dollar contract to promote a playoff environment for them and create a platform to create regulation in need of change that benefits them, but cant seem to put their heads together in a collaborative effort to create a playoff format that would be INCLUSIVE to all 125 FBS programs and future FBS programs. Again, thinking hedonistically for their own personal gain and not to assist all involved at that level. Just think what a portion of that money would do for the Non-BCS programs who compete at the same level of athletics, play by the same game rules and NCAA rules as the 5 power brokers and conferences. Just think what a traditional 16-team playoff format would do for college football allowing everyone a criteria based opportunity to compete for the national championship versus the 69 BCS programs who do now and then 60-62 BCS programs starting in 2014.

What the power brokers and commissioners are afraid of is losing and losing that opportunity to not only be called a national champion, but the financial implications that comes with competing for the title. They fear that if they allow the Non-BCS members an opportunity to compete for the national title, they could possibly lose and not receive the notoriety, prestige and financial wealth. Thus allowing the pendulum to swing away from their control.  This is like a young child who is very possessive of his toy and does not want to give in or give it up. Why do you think that the power brokers and conferences possess a significant home field advantage in their non conference schedule, which generates more revenue for them and manipulates and skews the 6 computerized systems and 2 human subjective polls used in determining the current national champion.

In a published book, research performed by and authored by myself, “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model” examined that very specific variable. For example and proven since 1996, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) holds the highest non-conference home field scheduling rate of 79.8% compared to the rest of the FBS conferences. Also proven since 1996, Alabama winner of the last 3 of 4 BCS titles holds a 90.2% in home field advantage in their non-conference scheduling practices. They have figured out if I don’t have to play on the road for a non conference game, convince other FBS programs to play at our stadium or a site centrally located near us and luring them away with money that they significantly decrease their chances of losing and the significant advantage to the large $17 Million dollar championship game. That’s 9 out of every 10 non conference games at home or in their own backyard with significantly less travel time and distance. How do you think Alabama and the SEC can afford to pay their coaches those salaries, lavish facility improvements and no one challenge them on how they did it.


This hedonistic approach by the power conferences and their conference commissioners are only looking out for themselves and themselves only. From my perspective, in which I can not prove as of yet, I believe that the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) and the Pacific 12 (PAC 12) are along for the ride on this train. They see the money trail that can be generated and how that money can best serve their hedonistic needs. What can be significantly proven is that this train is being led by Southeastern Conference Commissioner, Mike Slive and Big Ten Conference Commissioner, Jim Delaney. Its also noticeable that the Big 12 Conference Commissioner, Bob Blowsky, is now on the same train as Mr. Slive and Mr. Delaney. Intuition tells me that Mr. Bill Hancock, Commissioner of the Bowl Championship Series, is also part of this train ride but there is nothing printed with his name associated with this move. I would be the first to apologize to Mr. Bill Hancock, if he is not part of this train ride. It seems evident that this group of power brokers and conferences have “drawn a line in the sand” forcing the hand of NCAA President, Dr. Mark Emmert, to force a summit to discuss this option without fully investigating if there is a more Stuart Mills approach that would be beneficial for all under the same NCAA logo.

The key aspect to the power brokers making this decision is that it creates a huge debate topics and provides them more leverage to make financial decisions which are significantly Democritus. If the NCAA and its 280+ other non-significant member institutions allows this to happen they have no one to blame but themselves. This divide between the power brokers and the conferences would not only significantly change recruiting practices, but significantly making it tougher for the Non-BCS conference and programs to compete in that arena. They will have no financial leverage to offer recruits, like the power brokers and conferences. If this summit does go through and the power brokers get their way then this will push the discussion of anti-trust lawsuits that much closer to the table. Involving not only lawyers, but congress as well.

I am all for a playoff system but the system needs to be designed for ALL FBS programs. That’s why I authored and published my findings. Its an inclusive approach to determining a national champion in college football at the FBS level on the NCAA. The money generated by my 16-team playoff format would benefit all FBS programs with an equal and criteria based approach, making it fair for all. A fair for all premise the 5 power brokers do not believe in or wish to discuss because they would not have any control over it, no matter what they say or publish. There is always the hidden meaning behind their objective. With that large sum of money of $5.6 Bil. on the table to be gained by television revenue and sponsors for airing this playoff format, then why can’t the Non-BCS programs have an opportunity to participate. Athletic level is not determined by financial budgets, but by athletic ability and the cognitive abilities of both coaches and players to make the right athletic decision at the right time. Mark my words, when the 4-team playoff format arrives in 2014, the 4 slots will be filled by BCS programs and will always be filled by BCS programs. Until they advance the playoff format to 8 or 16 teams, the Non-BCS programs are still the peasants in the kingdom run by the (5) Kings of College Football. Again, its a hedonistic approach in which the 5 power brokers want to operate, but no one wants to stand on the other side of the line that they drew in the sand and debate the topic with them. Please let me be the one that represents the Non-BCS  and non FBS football Division 1 programs at this summit.


Alesia, Mark. (2013). “Indy Star: NCAA president Emmert vows ‘fundamental change’ in how top divisions make rules and policies” retrieved from the World Wide Web, google search on July 25, 2013.

Follow me on twitter: @cfbpoexpert

Purchase my book by clicking the icon in the upper left corner.

Who has my book as of this date and either reading it or possibly reading it: President Barack Obama, NCAA President Dr. Mark Emmert, 2 college president, 2 college athletic directors, 1 college football head coach.

NCAA Targeting Rule: Right or Wrong?

Starting in the 2013 college football season, a player can be ejected from a game, plus adding a 15-yard penalty at the completion of the play, for targeting.  Is this the right decision or the wrong decision? Its possible it could be a little of both.  I understand the purpose, motivation and the implementation of the rule; for player safety and to decrease, with the increase rise in student-athlete concussions and injuries from targeting.  With the rule in place, this now causes more subjective assessment to the men and women who are in place to regulate and apply those rules to the action on the field. Many athletic directors, coaches and sports writers have stated, “the rule will be tested in the first game and over the course of the first weekend of games”. This is so true.

I examined this rule from an athletic administrators point of view, seeing the whole picture. As an administrator, this means that I must have complete competence in my coaching staff to teach proper tackling techniques and proper reception of a tackle by a player.  In addition to, implementing sportsmanship in a game that possesses historic gamesmanship and now we add SIGNIFICANT amounts of money on the line from sponsors, bowl committees and to compete for the “national championship” of college football in an already flawed and skewed system that determines who should compete for the national championship. There will times during the season that a key player will forget about the “targeting rule” and play football they only way that has been ingrained into their minds, hard, fast and to win. This will cause the player to be ejected from the game that could be tied, one-possession difference, two-possession difference or just out of hand. Coaches will have their patience, attitudes and coaching etiquette put in check and tested, all from this rule.

From the men and women who will be refereeing these highly energized games, conference, non-conference and rivalry games, they are going to make split second decisions on ” not to” or “need to” throw the flag in these situations. Remember they are human, making split second decisions on is this targeting rule and situations, did the offensive player change his head or body position to make it look like a targeted hit and how often will the coaches lobby on the sidelines for those types of calls when the targeted hit is just a hit/tackle. Then we add the increased consciousness of where the game is played, whose fans, national television, sports commentators trying to analyze the hit, because they have 15 different camera angles to watch instant replay over and over to examine a frame by frame hit. The referees might miss some calls or make calls that were not right, but an ejection occurred. In a split second, judgement, subjective call,  the referees need to determine intent of the hit/tackle and if it warrants ejection. We need to support the referees decision, because they are there to govern the rules that they are trained in and to wear those stripes.

The most interesting aspects about the implementation of this rule are three. One, they are implementing a rule that possesses no statistical facts on the number of targeted hits during the course of a specific time period of college football, analysis, research or peer reviewed journal articles that supports the penalty to be enforced to the rules implementation. Two, with the increase of targeted hits and increased concussions with student athletes and professional athletes, the media and coaches needed a rule in place to protect the athletes. I get that, totally understand and respect the need for the rule, but not the implementation. Finally, the onus is on the referees to make the right decision with no experimentation to the rule, during regular season games, this does not include spring practice games when the rule was first implemented. If research, statistical evidence and peer reviewed journal articles are out there to support this stringent penalty to the rule, please let me know. I would enjoy reading it and analyzing it for validity. That means articles written and published by educators in journals that possess accreditation, possess reputation and peer reviewed. An article written by a sports reporter is credible but not valid in the education sector.

I support the rule as a much needed rule, this makes it right. To protect player safety and the sportsmanship of the game. What is wrong with the rule is how the penalty phase is being enforced without statistical evidence to support the penalty of immediate ejection from the game. If we were to add fairness and education to the sport with the student athletes during live action, then we give all opportunity to change their behavior patterns as football players. From what I can assess, with no true statistical information to determine if immediate ejection is needed from a targeted hit, then there needs to be a learning curve as we use the rule for learning on both sides of the ball. As my athletic administrators mind set, analytical thought process and critical thinking skills start to work, I would have suggested a two phase process to the implementation of the rule and the ejection process to the rules committee. I would have suggested to the committee the following:

A. First time a player is called for targeting, automatic 15-minute suspension from the game or into the next game, pending on when the penalty occurs within the time frame of the game. The player can return after serving a mandatory 15-minutes penalty of no play. Coaches should take the players helmet and shoulder pads away for 15-minutes. This will allow the player to cool off, understand that he cannot make targeted hits and offers coaches an opportunity to educate the player(s) on what they did wrong and instruct them in how to correct the actions. This also puts ALL players in the game on notice, that these types of hits will not be tolerated and the referees are doing the right thing.  This also take less pressure off the referee to automatically eject a player for a targeted hit. Make the call for the targeted hit, but educate and coach. The ONLY sub-rule that supercedes Rule A is, if the player that is called for targeting and injury or fatal injury occurs; such as concussion and/or paralysis, then immediate ejection and a 1-game suspension should occur no appeal process.

B. If the same player or the next player initiates a targeted hit, on either team, then automatic suspension/ejection from the remainder of the current game and the next game should be implemented. Student athletes will learn from what the first player did to receive the 15-minute ejection/penalty and mentally take note that they need to focus on working together for the promotion of the game, sport, safety of all players and sportsmanship.

C. Conference commissioners and rules committees should not fall to the lobbying that athletic directors will take into reviewing the call after the game is over. There will be no over-turning of suspensions. The rule is in place, they need to accept it. All the players, coaches and athletic administrators have been educated on the rule, the purpose of the rule and must accept the decisions made by the referees for the just cause of ejection to the rules.

The two phase process is more utilitarianistic versus hedonistic, in which the current rule is now. I am all for player safety and the improvement of the game, but rules such as this that causes the need for split second, judgement and a subjective thought process, is going to create a media frenzy. When Player X is ejected, from Team Y, from Conference Z,  during game A, who are competing for the possibility of a  “national championship”  game, with SIGNIFICANT amounts of money on the line from bowl games, sponsorship and recruits wanting to associate with winning programs, this is where the media frenzy will start and lobby for a change to the rule. The two phase ejection rule, which I would have submitted to the rules committee, would have a better due process, offers players that second chance with the 15-minutes suspension from the game, opportunity to educate the players from the coaches perspective.

Rash, quick decisions and implementation of rules without research to support the need for the penalty phase, will always come back and bite those hard for implementing the rule and ejection process. The rule is the right decision, the implementation of the ejection process is wrong.

Follow me on twitter at: @cfbpoexpert

My book : College Football in the BCS Era: The Untold Truth is available by clicking on the picture ton the upper left side of the screen. $20 +SH/TAX perfect for reading prior to the 2013 college football season.

College Football: SEC’s Overall Strength is Taking Advantage of their Non-Conference Scheudling

In response to a blog post on the website, dated June 26, 2013, within their college football blogs, under the SEC blog, authored by Chris Low, who writes for ESPN titled: “Will SEC’s overall strength be its undoing?”.

After reading this blog post by the author which is multi-fold of chest thumping, boasting for the SEC football conference, their 7 straight “national titles” and how they are more than likely going to win the 8th. In addition to, making an assessment that the remaining FBS college football programs are inching closer to “de-throwning” the SEC, possibly this year or will the SEC basically “self-implode” beating each other to eliminate them from the discussion of playing for their 8th straight national championship title. The article is written from a hedonistic point of view, but never really tells the whole truth. As Joe Friday said on Dragnet “Ma’am, just the facts, just the facts is all we want”.

The first comment that caught my attention 1st was “The Crimson Tide will almost certainly start the 2013 season ranked No.1 in the country, meaning we could very easily be talking about eight in a row a little more than six months form now”. I have a question that pertain to this comment. Just curious, who has Alabama played since the end of the 2012-2013 season and bowl season to earn that No. 1 status? Please, tell me, I don’t think the college football audience and fans missed a game. They would not televise a college football now would they.  I understand that being the national champion makes you the one that everyone is chasing, but no games have been played to determine who should be No.1 at the start of the season.

The next comment published by Chris Low, “After all, how many times will the SEC not get two teams in the College Football Playoff?” Is Chris Low insinuating that when the playoff system that starts with the 2014 season, that the SEC is “entitled” to 2 of the 4 spots from the selection committee? Or is Chris Low insinuating that the SEC will always have automatic representation in the 4-team playoff format? Seems to me that he is under the perception that the SEC is “entitled to 2 of the 4 spots, no matter what the remaining 111 FBS/NCAA football programs do. Sounds like “entitlement” to me. From my educational mind set, experience and research with the next 4-team playoff format; with the significant number of only 3% to be selected to this playoff format, then there should not be duplicate members from one conference.

The next comment that was published by Chris Low  “The growing legions of fans tired of seeing the SEC win all the time (convinced the current system using polls and computer favor the SEC)”. I can significantly prove without a shadow of a doubt, that the SEC does manipulate the computer systems in several ways. The SEC coaches and athletic administrators have found ways to take significant advantage of their non-conference schedule by playing more HOME games than road games. This numerical advantage significantly impacts all 6 computer analysis programs one way or another. Since 1996, the SEC does possess the highest conference rate for the non-conference home field advantage scheduling among all FBS conferences, at a rate of 79.8%. Of those non conference games scheduled by the SEC, they play 8 out of every 10 non conference games as group, played at home. In addition to the group, non-conference scheduling practices and rates, Alabama also possesses the highest home field non conference scheduling rate of all FBS programs at 90.1%, since 1996. That means Alabama plays 9  out of 10 HOME non conference games, which means 1 road game every 2 1/2 to 3 years. Those are the hard real facts.

Research performed by Jeremy Jamieson (2010), ” The Home Field Advantage in Athletics: A Meta-Analysis” and R. Pollard and G. Pollard (2005) “Long Term Trends in Home Field Advantage in Professional Team Sports in North America and England” both support the home field advantage theory in which the SEC takes full advantage of. What many media outlets fail to report are the significance of the non-conference scheduling advantages that the SEC takes in their practices and how they impact the subjective polls, in addition to the impact  those extra non conference home games effect the 6 computer systems that evaluate and rate FBS programs.

The ultimate questions is who will “de-thrown” the SEC and take the title away? I can only hope that Chris Low is correct about the SEC being the cause of their own demise. If the SEC creates increased mediocrity within the SEC conference during the 2013 season, then hopefully they wont have representation in the last BCS title game. However, the subjective voters will find a way to place a 2-loss SEC team in the national championship game over any 0-loss or 1-loss BCS or Non-BCS program. When the 4-team playoff format starts in the 2014 season, we will see how the selection committee uses their analytical assessment to select the right 4 teams to compete for the national championship. I can hypothesize that the first 4 teams selected will be all BCS programs, thus leaving the Non-BCS programs out in the cold again. Thus, increasing the next debate of when do we increase to 8 or even 16 teams in the playoff format.

My book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model” available at

Follow me on Twitter: @cfbpoexpert

College Football: Big East Changes Name to American Athletic Conference, BCS status pulled

As college football starts to embark on the 2013 football season in about 8 weeks, the Big East, prominent basketball conference and historic football conference, will have the BCS automatic conference bowl game tag removed. The 2013 season will be the last season that the Big East/American Athletic Conference will receive any automatic BCS bowl berth worth $17 Million dollars to the conference. When the 2014 college football season starts, the American Athletic Conference will be dismissed and become one of the Non-BCS conferences and become part of the so called “Group of Five”. This is like King Arthur telling one of his knights of the round table, ” You are now at peasant status, off you go and join the non-worthy public. You were useful to me when I needed you, now off you go to peasant status. Until you can fortify my kingdom with credible worth, you will no longer be part of our group. No matter what you do, your status from now on is peasant”. Voted out by the other knights of the round table and King Arthur himself.

The loss of Miami(Fla.), Penn State, Boston College, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech hurt the Big East conference as a football conference. Temple was never a competitive football program, but has returned after being a gypsy among the other FBS programs and conferences. With the current loss of Syracuse, Rutgers and soon Louisville and Pittsburgh will depart, this leaves the original Big East membership status at 0. During the time of the Big East football conference days, they were the a highly competitive football conference with those programs winning national titles and playing in prestigious bowl games. They have now moved on or were “lured away” to other football conferences because of the perceived notoriety those conferences possess. The Big East has always wanted new FBS programs to become part of that automatic bid conference. Even when the prominent programs were leaving, the Big East remained competitive and true to their brand.  Is status and name association that important to the NCAA that even though musical chairs have been played in all conferences, why must the Big East lose its BCS status? It seems to me that the NCAA and the BCS only want the best representation that promotes their image and marketing plan. With new FBS football programs entering the Big East, King Arthur believes that those new FBS programs are not viable products for BCS status. What is so interesting about these new Big East/American Athletic Conference football programs is they all compete under the same rules and regulations as all of the NCAA/FBS football programs. But since they are not of quality, like King Arthur said “You are not worthy any more, you are now a peasant”. Seems that King Arthur can do whatever he wants with his kingdom with no repercussions of his actions.

What if an SEC football member who lacks credibility within their own conference, such as Kentucky, Vanderbilt or Mississippi, said they wanted to join the American Athletic Conference. The possible reason for any one of them leaving the SEC would be, hey “we believe that we can actually win that conference, run the table, have 10 win seasons, rather than have a good SEC football season once every 10 years”. Does the American Athletic Conference then regain its BCS membership because King Arthur sent one or two of his knights into another region and return the credibility of the conference? ” I send you worthy BCS programs to compliment your conference thus your status is returned to BCS, because I don’t need any of my knights from my round table not to have the opportunity to earn $17 Million dollars”. At what point does the NCAA step in and say enough.

If I recall, does not all 125 FBS football members play by the same football rules, recruiting rules, academic rules, practice rules, number of games, number of time outs, size field and same football. Then why must the NCAA allows segregation into two groups; King Arthur and his round table and the peasants? The only thing that has changed is the amount of money that television wants to be associated with specific conferences to market and promote the so called “best conferences and programs” I know the American Athletic Conference will be a successful football conference as the seasons progress. I hope that when an American Athletic Conference member plays or is asked to play a BCS conference program, they compete and win. Then as the American Conference gains credibility they will continue to be asked to schedule BCS programs. What the American Athletic Conference and the remaining Non-BCS conferences should say to the BCS programs is,  “Sorry, either you play in our stadiums or we don’t play at all. We have bowed to King Arthur and his rules for to long, making accommodations to your needs to always play in your stadiums for 15+ years while you receive the accolades, notoriety and large sums of money.  Time for you to spend some of that money you keep holding on to and put into travel arrangements to Non-BCS Conference programs”.

I wish the American Athletic Conference great success as they build student athlete success and National Championships.

4-Team Playoff Format Superior or Expanded Playoff Format???

In response to a June 19, 2013 posting in the Inside Higher ED webpage pertaining to “Keeping College Playoff at 4 Teams, Faculty Group Pleads”, the 1-A Faculty Athletic Representatives group wish to discourage any expanded playoff format more than the 4 team system that will be implemented with the 2014 FBS season. This article was a link from a posting by one of the groups I follow, by Mark Majeski, in which I read. Brian Shannon, President of the 1-A faculty group and Charles (Tex) Thornton; Professor of Law at Texas Tech are opposed to any further playoff system and quote “The four-team College Football Playoff design is far superior to any expanded playoff system that would add more teams playing more games over more weeks, thereby further interfering with academic obligations, inevitably overlapping with final exams and extending into the second semester, and increasing risks for serious injury” (Inside Higher ED, 2013). These claims all though sound, lacks sufficient evidence to support the statements made by both Shannon and Thornton within their concern about an expanded playoff format.

From my educational experience, research and vast knowledge on this topic, their concerns and arguments are like Lorraine Swiss Cheese, possessing many holes in their argumentative points. Their first comment about the 4-team playoff design being far superior to any expanded playoff format, is very delimiting. The NCAA operates 88 NCAA Championship playoff type formats with large member, expanded playoff pools and formats. Why should not one of America’s favorite past-times and traditions with the passage into Fall and the start Fall classes, be excluded from an expanded playoff format? The four-team playoff format is a step in the right direction, but still possesses many major issues that are still currently prevalent in the BCS system used now.  From the group of faculty representatives position, they only want to invite a small sample size of 3% of the current 125 FBS programs to compete in college football, for the national championship at the FBS/NCAA D-1 Football level. The 88 national championship tournaments operated by the NCAA offers 20% or more of the member institutions or individuals to compete for and be called a national champion of their NCAA respective sport and competition. The incorporation of just the 4-team format, places the decision making process, assessment and selection process in a group of 8-12 committee members hands who ultimately possess a Democritus position since millions of $$’s are on the line for the program and conference. Limiting the sample size to determine a national champion in college football at the FBS/NCAA level is very hedonistic, because we are not offering all prominent programs with credible records during that competitive season to compete for the national title, also known as the Boise State’s, Nevada’s, Louisiana Tech’s, Northern Illinois’s, Hawaii’s and other Non-BCS conferences and programs that possess national notoriety.

The second comment stated by Shannon and Thornton about adding more teams and weeks would interfere with academic obligations and final exams and into the second semester.  Is it not possible that an expanded playoff format could be implemented with those aspects in mind with the regard to academics and final exams? In my book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model, examined that very comment and created a playoff format that took into account this main argument and others arguments. Did Shannon and Thornton take into account that conference championship weekend, the first weekend in December possibly interferes with finals week and academic obligations of the student athletes. College post season bowl season does not start until just prior to 3rd weekend of December or the 17th or 18th, which indicates that the bowl committees have already taken into to account for academics and finals week. As for more teams playing more weeks, the weeks in which an expanded playoff format would occur, would be completed during the between semesters break of Fall into Spring. The current championship game and the future 4-team playoff format will and does now extend into the second semester for many larger high profile universities that compete at the FBS/NCAA level of college football. The 16-team playoff format in which I created and designed, ends at the same time as the current championship game does now. The 4-team format will inevitably be pushed directly into the second semester, since television will possess some decision making process into when the final game will be played in January.

As per the comment about increasing risk of serious injuries to the student athletes, injuries are part of all sports and activities. Proper conditioning and training will not only prepare these student athletes for this expanded playoff format, but significantly decrease the chance of any serious injury. Does Shannon and Thornton not think that these coaching staffs and training staffs are not qualified to condition, care for and prepare these student athletes for extra games? Please give credit to these highly educated athletic training staffs and conditioning coaches for their just do, for keeping the student athletes healthy all season long.

The implementation of an expanded “inclusive and fair” playoff format  for all 125 FBS and future FBS programs to be considered to compete in, will more than significantly be financially beneficial to the NCAA and college football. A 16-team playoff format, will currently allow 12.8% of the FBS programs to compete for the national championship in college football at the FBS/NCAA level. That’s a 400% more participation rate than the 3% the faculty representatives want. The 12.8% participation is a square number, utilitarianistic number and allows for great games to be played between evenly matched programs to determine advancement to the next rounds. Another positive aspect to an expanded playoff format like the 16-team format, allows for time switchers and casuals to attend this high profile playoff event, without placing ticket requirements on alumni and athletic departments to purchase a large number of tickets, like they do with bowl games and sometimes left holding extra tickets and a financial loss. The casuals, time switchers, along with the 37 million college football fans, will increase the revenue taxed based dollars in those specific football and bowl site communities where these games are played. Why must we limit attendance to these high profile bowl games to alumni and ivory tower members? Is college football and the playoff format not for all spectators to attend and be part of, just like winning a National Championship should be available to all FBS programs to earn, and not just the  6 or 5 BCS conferences with 69 BCS programs.

Without an expanded playoff format in college football at the FBS/NCAA level, the NCAA and selection committee are hedonistically keeping those athletic accomplishments and dreams of those Non-BCS conferences, programs, players, coaches and fans to be called a National Champion in the sport in which they have a passion for. In a peer reviewed journal article written by Stephen Finn (2009), in the Journal of  the Philosophy of Sport, ” In Defense of the Playoff System” , Finn made interesting arguments for a playoff format. The current system in use by the NCAA for FBS college football is more like a season long championship with human subjectivity and computerized systems to determine the final 2 FBS programs to compete for the National Championship in college football. Finn(2009) states ” A season long championship includes narrative possibilities that offer enriching experiences, but a playoff system provides us with, to put it simply, a better story. A playoff system, by contrast, offers a culminating event that increases tension and drama; it produces more uncertainty and thereby heightens one’s interests in the outcome; it allows for a distinction between types of games, where athletes are challenged in different ways.” I believe Finn, along with my research and book, are onto something that educated commissioners, college chancellors and presidents are afraid to admit, but they respect the use of higher educational knowledge, learning and peer reviewed journal articles to assist in making decisions.

The link to purchase my book is on the front page of my blog page or go to and search for the title “College Football in the BCS Era: The Untold Truth”.

Follow me on Twitter: @CFBPOexpert

Sample 9-Game Conference Scheduling Format

With the future of college football changing as the days go forward, many conferences are making significant changes to their conference scheduling practices in the future. Many FBS conference, more specifically BCS conferences are changing to the 9 Game Conference scheduling format. However, there are no cross divisional scheduling practices or formats in place. Allowing the athletic directors to schedule who ever they want and how they want in the other division within the same conference. It would be more logical to design and implement a standardized, cross divisional, within conference scheduling grid. This standardized scheduling grid would significantly decrease the responsibilities of ALL athletic directors with the lobbying to within conference athletic directors, to schedule within cross divisional games. How would a large member BCS conference cross divisional schedule look, if there was a standardized scheduling grid?

I have examined scheduling practices for the past 5 years and it seems that certain BCS programs within high profile split division BCS conferences “DON’T” want to play specific programs within their own membership conference. You should not get the right to choose who you “DON’T” want to play in your respective member conference. It’s come to knowledge and expressed in various media outlets, more specifically the Southeastern Conference FBS football programs, do not want to play members in other divisions or not this year. Their hedonistic thoughts are to say “lets wait until they have a down year and then we will play them”. The idea that I have thought from an athletic directors point of view, that should be implemented, for a standardized scheduling grid for all split division FBS conferences. This type of system is simplistic, takes less thought and energy, plus it significantly decreases lobbying by athletic directors during athletic director meetings during scheduling time.

The standardized scheduling grid would still allow for competitive conference play, possibly maintain or create conference rivalries and increase the importance of each conference game. The rules for the standardized scheduling grid would be implemented as follows:

1. Once the 12 game regular season is complete for the competitive season and all regular conference games are complete, each division are already ranked in order by win-loss records within the division of that member conference. Start There.

2. The next season’s conference scheduling can be created by the final placement of each team within their division vs. the other division same placements. Divisional tie breakers can be determined by head to head games played against each divisional members.

3. Each team within the division plays each other, then the remaining number of conference games that need to be scheduled will be determined by final placement of Division A placements vs. remaining number of (X) games needed from Division B teams placements.

4. If you play the same cross divisional program in successive seasons, alternate the home and away scheduling format. The team that plays more HOME conference games in season A will play less HOME games in the next conference cross divisional scheduling season. This will place balance within the home field advantage topic and no one team will have a home field scheduling advantage like their are currently with the Non-Conference FBS scheduling practices.

For example, lets see the how the implementation of scheduling the cross divisional games, that should be required by rules, ethics, fairness, morals and not by lobbying.

Division A Team placement 1st schedules Division B teams placements of 1,2& 3

Division A Team placement 2nd schedules Division B teams placements of 1,2& 4

Division A Team placement 3rd schedules Division B teams placements of 1,3& 4

Division A Team placement 4th schedules Division B teams placements of 2,3& 4

Division A Team placement 5th, 6th & 7th schedules Division B teams placement 5,6& 7

Lets look at the Southeastern Conference and how their future 9-team conference schedule would look if this was implemented for the 2013 season.

GA: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) ALA, (A) LSU and (H) TXAM

FLA: 6 games within the division 3H/3A and then (A) ALA, (H) LSU and (A) MSST

SC: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) ALA, (A) MSST and (A) TXAM

VANDY: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (H) TXAM, (H) MSST and (A) LSU

MZ: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (A) MS, (H) ARK and (H) AU

TN: 6 games within division 3H/3a and then (H) MS, (A) ARK and (H) AU

KY: 6 games within division 3H/3A and then (A) MS, (H) ARK and (A) AU

I just significantly decreased scheduling issues and the time needed for athletic directors for the within conference, cross divisional scheduling practices. By implementing this format, this will allow athletic directors to focus on other issues within the athletic environment vs. email tag, lobbying, phone calls, talking with head coaches, phone tag, and saying “I DON’T WANT TO PLAY THEM THIS YEAR”. Schedule the games, play the members in your conference in which you voted in, in addition to stop running away and hiding with fear of losing.

Problem Solved…… And Yes…. I have a standardized scheduling format for a 9 game, 12 member and 2 division FBS conferences and a standardized scheduling format for a standardized cross conference scheduling format. You can find these formats like these in my book “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model”  available at Click on  the home page and then click on the front cover of the book. Purchase and read it before the 2013 FBS season starts.



Future BCS 4-Team Playoff Possesses Major Issues

Tuesday April 23, 2013; the BCS will unveil their future 4-team playoff mode, which will be implimented after the 2014 FBS season. Reading the early postings by sports writers from credible sports authorities indicates that the BCS and the NCAA are in agreement of going against their own principles and values. The next phase of the 4-team playoff format does possess major design issues and significant vested interest. Steps in the right direction, but not well thought out and against their morals and beliefs, all for the $$$. Again following the theory of Democritus and Almond.

In the early phases of this championship topic for the BCS, the NCAA and the BCS, both agreed in not wanting to extend the season past the current time in which it is now, ending on January 7 of the calendar year, or into the second semester of the academic year. Now, the future 4-team playoff will definitively extend into the next season and into the start of the 2nd semester of all major universities that compete at the FBS level of college football. Playing until January 12th of the calendar year, 5 days past the current date. That’s just one design flaw. The next design flaw, is the selection committee which could include 14-20 members, that will be chosen to select the 4-teams. Each member selected will still possess a vested interest objective/subjective thought to the committee party because of the large financial revenue that will be distributed. Even with this new expansion of 2 more FBS teams, this “exclusive” 4-team playoff group will significantly consist of the BCS programs and conferences members only group. The true facts have not yet been revealed by the BCS organization and Bill Hancock. Those will be revealed on Tuesday April 23, 2013. Seems to me that those with money are driving this train and making decisions based upon Democritus and Almond.

There is a new book available now, that addresses the college football playoff topic at, titled “College Football in the BCS Era, The Untold Truth: An Analysis of Factors that Supports the 16-Team Playoff Model”. This book examines many aspects of college football during the BCS Era and offers an “inclusive” approach to a college football playoff format. Maybe the BCS committee and Mr. Bill Hancock should read this book. The link below gets you to the book:

Something tells me, I might need to send him a copy with a personal letter…..


New Book: College Football In the BCS Era, The Untold Truth

This is the literary work in which I have been working on for the past 5 years, investigating college football on how they determine their “national champion” at the highest level of collage football, FBS/NCAA and the unethical use of the BCS system. To purchase the book you can go to and search for book by title or author name, Matthew Siggelow.  The link below will allow you to examine a  few pages in the book and purchase.

With college football starting up their spring practices and in about 3 months time, the 2013 college football season begins. I used an educational approach on this topic of  college football, which examined the historical evidence and facts.  This book tells the truth about college football at the NCAA and the FBS level of play, in the unethical way they determine  and crown a “national champion”.  The information inside this book examines historical evidence and looked at numerical data from 1996-2012, within the college football season. This is NOT an opinion based book, like others that have been published. This book is supported by peer reviewed journal articles associated within the topic, books written by credible doctoral professors, books written by credible sports authors and data driven to support the hypothesis and theory, which supports the 16-team playoff model. The book also examines the 16-team playoff model theory by using the professional model for sports, while adopting the ‘inclusive” aspect of athletics and sports. The book was written in a style that will allow all sports enthusiast and college football fans to read and understand. I did not write the book from a p or f  value of significance, in which the majority of all research is written. The significance is in the percentages, ratios and tables that make it simple to understand.

This book ANSWERED the toughest question in college football of; playoffs or current BCS system. The future 4-team playoff format that the NCAA is accepting and investigating, will still cause issues and complaints. It will never offer the Non-BCS programs an opportunity to compete for the national title. It’s time that college football at the FBS level for the NCAA, to possess a 16-team playoff format which allows all FBS programs a FAIR opportunity to win the National Championship like the rest of the 88 NCAA sponsored sports and championships. It’s time for much needed change in college football at the NCAA/FBS level of Play.

“The genie is now out of the bottle”

If you have any questions, please tweet me and follow me on twitter @cfbpoexpert

I look forward to reviews on my book.