The College Football Season
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
Ah, I found it. It is a temporary thing meant to determine a national champion in college football. I thought I remembered hearing that a couple of years ago. Here's the link. http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/about
Stanford Fires Walt Harris
http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2006/12/1/breakingNewsHarrisFiredAsFootballCoach
BREAKING NEWS: Harris fired as football coach
December 1, 2006
By Alex Gyr
Athletic Director Bob Bowlsby announced today that head football coach Walt Harris would not be returning after just two seasons at the helm of the program.
Bowlsby made the official announcement immediately after meeting with Harris early Monday morning. The Athletic Director cited the team’s lack of development over the last two seasons as the primary reason for the split.
“I have made the decision after consulting with a wide number of people that the time is right to make a change in our football leadership,” Bowlsby said. “I have appreciated my relationship with Walt Harris and his staff and have appreciated all their hard work. This was a tough year, but in some respect this decision wasn’t made as a result of being 1-11 as much as it was a result of us not seeing the kind of critical progress that we would have hoped for in two years.”
Harris led the Cardinal to a 6-17 record in his two seasons on The Farm—a brief tenure characterized by disappointing defeats. After falling one win short of a bowl berth in 2005 with a 5-6 record, the Cardinal were among the worst teams in the nation in 2006. The squad suffered losses to both San Jose State and Division I-AA UC-Davis in the past two seasons and, perhaps more importantly, were 0-2 against UC-Berkeley under Harris.
Injuries were a major factor in the Cardinal’s struggles throughout the 2006 season. Receivers Mark Bradford and Evan Moore spent most of season out with foot injuries. Fulllback Nick Frank was forced to retire from football due to narrowing vertebrae in his spine and senior quarterback Trent Edwards missed the last five games of the season with a broken bone in his foot.
“There were things that were not of Walt’s making that he didn’t have a whole lot of control over,” Bowlsby said. “But in the end it was my belief that we ought to start fresh to do all the big things and all the small things that it takes to return Stanford football to its appropriate position of competitiveness.”
Waning support from fans and boosters may have also doomed Harris. The new, $90 million Stanford Stadium was mostly empty throughout the season as many fans displayed their disappointment with the program by not using their tickets.
“People vote with their pocketbooks and they vote with their feet,” Bowlsby said. “The last game against Oregon State, we probably had 12,000 people in the stands. Fortunately we did sell 34,000 tickets. One has to wonder those people that had $45 tickets and didn’t care to come to the game will want to buy them again next year. To be honest, I have to say that declining attendance and fan support certainly were a factor in this decision.”
Harris has three more years left on his original five-year contract. Bowlsby said that he was still in negotiations with Harris to put together fair terms of separation. All assistant coaches are under contract until June 30, 2007 and their contracts will be honored.
Former Athletic Director Ted Leland hired Harris in 2005, following a lengthy search process after the firing of former coach Buddy Teevens. Prior to heading up the Cardinal, Harris spent eight seasons with Pittsburgh, where he led the Panthers to six bowl games, including the Fiesta Bowl in 2004. But he failed to duplicate that same level of success in the short time that he spent at Stanford.
“I’d like to thank Stanford University for the opportunity to come back home and coach at Stanford,” Harris said. “Regretfully, I leave with a heavy heart, because we didn’t get the job done. I wish the Stanford players and the program the best of luck as they rebuild.”
Bowlsby met with the current players immediately following the announcement to outline what he was looking for in a new coach. He highlighted strong recruiting and the ability to take advantage of Stanford’s unique situation as musts for a new coach.
“We need a person that is a relentless recruiter,” Bowlsby said. “All our coaches in all our sports are assigned with the same task—they have to find the student athlete from all over the country that is academically capable of benefiting form a Stanford education and athletically gifted enough to play in a top program. We need someone that goes out and does that enthusiastically and can do that so we can compete in the Pac-10.”
“This is a unique place,” junior quarterback T.C. Ostrander said. “We need a coach that is going to embrace that. There is no way that they can fight what makes this program different and still be successful.”
Bowlsby refused to name any possible replacements for Harris, but he did emphasize that the process would move quickly.
“We are going about the process of identifying candidates,” Bowlsby said. “Every athletic director has a short list in their back pocket, and I have mine. I am not prepared to share at this point, but we are going about the process so I would hope to be all done with the search in about two weeks.”
Bowlsby said he will personally meet with any current recruits who wish to speak with him about the situation.
“No one will ever say that Coach Harris didn’t want to win or succeed,” senior receiver Evan Moore said. “But we have to do what is best for the program and get over it, move on and keep working.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed feelings about this one. The team did come out strong against Cal the other day, and he did have more than his fair share of injuries to deal with. But the players nearly quit on him earlier this season, and I just don't think he's the right fit for Stanford right now.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/article/2006/12/1/breakingNewsHarrisFiredAsFootballCoach
BREAKING NEWS: Harris fired as football coach
December 1, 2006
By Alex Gyr
Athletic Director Bob Bowlsby announced today that head football coach Walt Harris would not be returning after just two seasons at the helm of the program.
Bowlsby made the official announcement immediately after meeting with Harris early Monday morning. The Athletic Director cited the team’s lack of development over the last two seasons as the primary reason for the split.
“I have made the decision after consulting with a wide number of people that the time is right to make a change in our football leadership,” Bowlsby said. “I have appreciated my relationship with Walt Harris and his staff and have appreciated all their hard work. This was a tough year, but in some respect this decision wasn’t made as a result of being 1-11 as much as it was a result of us not seeing the kind of critical progress that we would have hoped for in two years.”
Harris led the Cardinal to a 6-17 record in his two seasons on The Farm—a brief tenure characterized by disappointing defeats. After falling one win short of a bowl berth in 2005 with a 5-6 record, the Cardinal were among the worst teams in the nation in 2006. The squad suffered losses to both San Jose State and Division I-AA UC-Davis in the past two seasons and, perhaps more importantly, were 0-2 against UC-Berkeley under Harris.
Injuries were a major factor in the Cardinal’s struggles throughout the 2006 season. Receivers Mark Bradford and Evan Moore spent most of season out with foot injuries. Fulllback Nick Frank was forced to retire from football due to narrowing vertebrae in his spine and senior quarterback Trent Edwards missed the last five games of the season with a broken bone in his foot.
“There were things that were not of Walt’s making that he didn’t have a whole lot of control over,” Bowlsby said. “But in the end it was my belief that we ought to start fresh to do all the big things and all the small things that it takes to return Stanford football to its appropriate position of competitiveness.”
Waning support from fans and boosters may have also doomed Harris. The new, $90 million Stanford Stadium was mostly empty throughout the season as many fans displayed their disappointment with the program by not using their tickets.
“People vote with their pocketbooks and they vote with their feet,” Bowlsby said. “The last game against Oregon State, we probably had 12,000 people in the stands. Fortunately we did sell 34,000 tickets. One has to wonder those people that had $45 tickets and didn’t care to come to the game will want to buy them again next year. To be honest, I have to say that declining attendance and fan support certainly were a factor in this decision.”
Harris has three more years left on his original five-year contract. Bowlsby said that he was still in negotiations with Harris to put together fair terms of separation. All assistant coaches are under contract until June 30, 2007 and their contracts will be honored.
Former Athletic Director Ted Leland hired Harris in 2005, following a lengthy search process after the firing of former coach Buddy Teevens. Prior to heading up the Cardinal, Harris spent eight seasons with Pittsburgh, where he led the Panthers to six bowl games, including the Fiesta Bowl in 2004. But he failed to duplicate that same level of success in the short time that he spent at Stanford.
“I’d like to thank Stanford University for the opportunity to come back home and coach at Stanford,” Harris said. “Regretfully, I leave with a heavy heart, because we didn’t get the job done. I wish the Stanford players and the program the best of luck as they rebuild.”
Bowlsby met with the current players immediately following the announcement to outline what he was looking for in a new coach. He highlighted strong recruiting and the ability to take advantage of Stanford’s unique situation as musts for a new coach.
“We need a person that is a relentless recruiter,” Bowlsby said. “All our coaches in all our sports are assigned with the same task—they have to find the student athlete from all over the country that is academically capable of benefiting form a Stanford education and athletically gifted enough to play in a top program. We need someone that goes out and does that enthusiastically and can do that so we can compete in the Pac-10.”
“This is a unique place,” junior quarterback T.C. Ostrander said. “We need a coach that is going to embrace that. There is no way that they can fight what makes this program different and still be successful.”
Bowlsby refused to name any possible replacements for Harris, but he did emphasize that the process would move quickly.
“We are going about the process of identifying candidates,” Bowlsby said. “Every athletic director has a short list in their back pocket, and I have mine. I am not prepared to share at this point, but we are going about the process so I would hope to be all done with the search in about two weeks.”
Bowlsby said he will personally meet with any current recruits who wish to speak with him about the situation.
“No one will ever say that Coach Harris didn’t want to win or succeed,” senior receiver Evan Moore said. “But we have to do what is best for the program and get over it, move on and keep working.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixed feelings about this one. The team did come out strong against Cal the other day, and he did have more than his fair share of injuries to deal with. But the players nearly quit on him earlier this season, and I just don't think he's the right fit for Stanford right now.
That much is correct, but there was some talk about the Pac-10 and Rose Bowl wanting out after a number of issues - Oregon being excluded from the title game vs. Miami despite being 2 in both polls and Nebraska getting in despite a loss in their championship game the week before, USC not reaching the title game despite being ranked #1 in both polls and Cal being excluded from the Rose Bowl because Mac Brown was able to convince enough poll voters to bump Texas up in the standings and receive a mandatory BCS bid.
Yet when the time came to renew they gladly did. For all their talk about tradition and getting screwed they wanted in on that $$$. That's when I realized we're pretty much stuck with this.
Yet when the time came to renew they gladly did. For all their talk about tradition and getting screwed they wanted in on that $$$. That's when I realized we're pretty much stuck with this.
Ultimately, the BCS doesn't care about anything besides #1 and #2 - that's all it is there for. The pairings for the other bowls come under:
1. Automatic Bids
2. Highest revenue
You'll never see a team like ND out of the BCS if they meet the requirements because of #2, which is the same reason Boise State is in this year. (Let's not kid ourselves. There's no way they get in if it weren't for the automatic qualifier.)
#1 Gives us great teams like Wake Forest, and Louisville, who got in through a series of tiebreakers, even though they lost to Rutgers, who lost to West Virginia, who lost to...you get the idea.
The Rose bowl will never get rid of the automatic bids, because it was built upon the tradition of Big 10 vs. Pac 10, which in itself is nice to see. Perhaps there should be a limiter on the automatic bids for the other bowls. For example, if a conference champ falls outside the BCS Top 10, Wake Forest, I'm looking at you, then they should NOT receive the automatic bid, and another at large could be selected.
Another idea that's been hurled about is the +1 model, which in this year, would look something like this:
BCS Rankings:
Ohio State = 1.000
Florida = .945
Michigan = .934
LSU = .833
For comparison, USC = .795
Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. LSU (#1 vs. #4)
Sugar Bowl: Michigan vs. Florida (#2 vs. #3)
One week later, winners battle, champion crowned. Other bowls stream revenue as before.
1. Automatic Bids
2. Highest revenue
You'll never see a team like ND out of the BCS if they meet the requirements because of #2, which is the same reason Boise State is in this year. (Let's not kid ourselves. There's no way they get in if it weren't for the automatic qualifier.)
#1 Gives us great teams like Wake Forest, and Louisville, who got in through a series of tiebreakers, even though they lost to Rutgers, who lost to West Virginia, who lost to...you get the idea.
The Rose bowl will never get rid of the automatic bids, because it was built upon the tradition of Big 10 vs. Pac 10, which in itself is nice to see. Perhaps there should be a limiter on the automatic bids for the other bowls. For example, if a conference champ falls outside the BCS Top 10, Wake Forest, I'm looking at you, then they should NOT receive the automatic bid, and another at large could be selected.
Another idea that's been hurled about is the +1 model, which in this year, would look something like this:
BCS Rankings:
Ohio State = 1.000
Florida = .945
Michigan = .934
LSU = .833
For comparison, USC = .795
Rose Bowl: Ohio State vs. LSU (#1 vs. #4)
Sugar Bowl: Michigan vs. Florida (#2 vs. #3)
One week later, winners battle, champion crowned. Other bowls stream revenue as before.
When you think about it, the BCS is a playoff system already. Just like the selection committee picks the 64 teams to play in the NCAA basketball playoffs, the BCS picks the 2 teams to play in the football playoffs.
I would ideally like to see the "playoffs" expanded to 8 teams, but just going to 4 would be a huge step. I also don't see how they would be losing any money on such a scenario.
I would ideally like to see the "playoffs" expanded to 8 teams, but just going to 4 would be a huge step. I also don't see how they would be losing any money on such a scenario.
Edit your post to say 2 games instead of 2 teams, problem solved, gosh! Was it really necessary to add that? 
4 is best, as there's usually a drop off after that, and you want to keep the value of the regular season. 8 teams + starts to devalue the regular season, as the schedules will weaken even more, and a loss won't have the impact that it has now. Personally, I'm not in favor of a playoff, but I like the idea of a +1.
4 is best, as there's usually a drop off after that, and you want to keep the value of the regular season. 8 teams + starts to devalue the regular season, as the schedules will weaken even more, and a loss won't have the impact that it has now. Personally, I'm not in favor of a playoff, but I like the idea of a +1.
Part of the reason for the BCS was timing. Because football is traditionally only played once a week, as opposed to basketball, baseball and hockey, you do not have the luxury of "best of" situations. At the end of the season, there simply isn't enough "wiggle room" to allow for three or four extra weeks of play.
The BCS isn't perfect by any means but it's something to build on.
The BCS isn't perfect by any means but it's something to build on.
Ok, so a 4 team playoff. What I don't understand is why that would be a bad idea for anybody. Wouldn't they make more money doing that? Wouldn't that generate even more interest. The National Championship is already played a day or two (or three) after the New Year's bowl games, so what if it is a week?
Play it Jan 8th every year. Or leave the non-playoff bowl games on New Years, and play the semi-finals on the last Saturday or Tuesday or whatever of the December, and the championship game on the first Saturday or Tuesday or whatever of January. It's not that hard.
The other bowls would generate as much interest as they do now. The semi-finals would obviously generate more interest even if they aren't on Jan 1 because they would directly affect the championship, and of course the National Championship would only get bigger because you would always have two teams coming off wins against quality opponents and playing for the "undisputed" title.
Play it Jan 8th every year. Or leave the non-playoff bowl games on New Years, and play the semi-finals on the last Saturday or Tuesday or whatever of the December, and the championship game on the first Saturday or Tuesday or whatever of January. It's not that hard.
The other bowls would generate as much interest as they do now. The semi-finals would obviously generate more interest even if they aren't on Jan 1 because they would directly affect the championship, and of course the National Championship would only get bigger because you would always have two teams coming off wins against quality opponents and playing for the "undisputed" title.
True, but as far as I know every other college sport has a playoff (of more than 2 teams ). It's possible that the timing of it is what is the problem, but a slight modification to what I mentioned and you will only be using dates that are already being used for bowl games. So I still don't see what the problem could be. :shrug:
). It's possible that the timing of it is what is the problem, but a slight modification to what I mentioned and you will only be using dates that are already being used for bowl games. So I still don't see what the problem could be. :shrug:
Here's just something interesting about this year - the old bowl system is actually superior to the BCS for resolving this mess. tOSU would play USC in the Rose Bowl and Florida and Michigan would likely meet in the Sugar. If Ohio State wins they are the mythical national champs, if USC wins the winner of the Florida-Michigan matchup gets the honor.
I do wonder if their could be co-champions this year if Florida wins ugly and Michigan blows out USC. Or if Boise State steamrolls Oklahoma if they'll get any #1 votes in the AP or Harris (not sure if the Harris votes are locked like the coaches poll).
I do wonder if their could be co-champions this year if Florida wins ugly and Michigan blows out USC. Or if Boise State steamrolls Oklahoma if they'll get any #1 votes in the AP or Harris (not sure if the Harris votes are locked like the coaches poll).
This is simply BS.
There is plenty of time for a playoff. Big Ten schools have 50 days between their last game and the last bowl game. Every other collegiate division has playoff system. For example, D3 has a 32 team playoff that has worked for decades.
It has nothing to do with the calendar. It has nothing to do with academics. It has everyting to do with money.....nothing else.
There is plenty of time for a playoff. Big Ten schools have 50 days between their last game and the last bowl game. Every other collegiate division has playoff system. For example, D3 has a 32 team playoff that has worked for decades.
It has nothing to do with the calendar. It has nothing to do with academics. It has everyting to do with money.....nothing else.
