NCAA Football '11-'12

[OttoVonBismarck]

From some people I know who are familiar with West Virginia sports I've heard a bit more about Jeff Casteel (D. Coordinator) going to Arizona. Now that some of those details come out I'm really confused about why he is making the move. Apparently West Virginia offered him $200,000 more than he'll be making at Arizona, and a 4-year contract. I don't know what sort of contract Arizona is offering in terms of longevity, but typically assistants at most schools have 1 year contracts that are renewed season to season.

It makes me think that perhaps Holgorsen was "supportive" of the move. He was brought in at West Virginia in a very strange way; he was hired as Offensive Coordinator/Head-Coach-in-Waiting, and given full firing/hiring authority over the offense, but no input on the defensive staff. When WVU previous coach left before doing his "lame duck" season, it seems the defensive staff was semi-protected from being changed up by Holgorsen, and I think maybe as a young, new head coach Holgorsen may have been pushing to have full control of both sides of the football and maybe Casteel who has been at West Virginia since the Nehlen era bristled at that. I have heard that Holgorsen was going to let two of Casteel's assistants go and replace them whether he stayed or not, so it does seem if Casteel had stayed he'd have been giving up more control of his defense. But then, Rich Rodriguez is known as an infamous control-freak and egomaniac, and was also frequently guilty of straight-up raiding the defense at West Virginia and taking the fastest players and trying to make them offensive players, so I'm not sure it makes sense for him to go to Arizon. 

[Berkut]

I think it makes perfect sense, although not in a manner that is so great for Arizona.

He wants to be a head coach, and to be a head coach ADs want to see you be successful either at a big school, or at a variety of middle tier schools in different locales.

He needed to get out of West Virginia, in other words.

I suspect he will only be at Arizona for a year or two before he get s a HC gig somewhere.

[derspiess]

I think it makes perfect sense, although not in a manner that is so great for Arizona.

He wants to be a head coach, and to be a head coach ADs want to see you be successful either at a big school, or at a variety of middle tier schools in different locales.

He needed to get out of West Virginia, in other words.

I suspect he will only be at Arizona for a year or two before he get s a HC gig somewhere.

Hopefully for you guys he has more success at Arizona than he had at WVU.

[derspiess]

Playoffs next year?

Looks like it.  *fingers crossed*

Granted it is not a Canadian style 80 team playoff or anything.  Just the top 4 but that works for me.

But it probably won't satisfy 95% of the rest raving anti-BCS fanatics, who won't be happy until the system is "perfect", which I suspect will be a moving target.  Even if it gets to a 16-team tournament the same types will bitch just as loud about how the selection/matchup/whatever is unfair or a joke.

College football is my favorite sport, but for me any sort of national championship is anti-climactic.  I'll always get more enjoyment out of the regular season plus some of the bowls than I do with a national championship game or would with a playoffs-type scenario.  Frankly I wouldn't mind if they returned to the pre-Bowl Alliance days and just relied on polls to determine the "national champion".  There is a very wide range of styles of play and types of talent throughout college football (and I hope that never changes-- a SuperDivision or whatever would take a lot of the fun out of it for me).  I think obsessing over an indisputable national champion is trying to put too fine a point on things. 

[sbr]

I totally agree derspiess.

[Valmy]

But it probably won't satisfy 95% of the rest raving anti-BCS fanatics, who won't be happy until the system is "perfect", which I suspect will be a moving target.  Even if it gets to a 16-team tournament the same types will bitch just as loud about how the selection/matchup/whatever is unfair or a joke.

I am not sure I agree with this strawman portrayal of anti-BCS types.  Just because you have an issue with the system does not make you an insane fanatic.  I just disagree with the elitism of the system.  A plus 1 gives the next generation's Utah, TCU, and Boise State a chance to win it all.  No team should win all their regular season and post season games and not be the national champion.  That just does not make any sense.  Is that not a sensible position?  Saying otherwise sounds like insane ravings to me but that is what we have.

Besides it sorta sounds like you yourself are anti-BCS and have a problem with its entire reason for existance.

[katmai]

Should be 8 team playoff.

[frunk]

But it probably won't satisfy 95% of the rest raving anti-BCS fanatics, who won't be happy until the system is "perfect", which I suspect will be a moving target.  Even if it gets to a 16-team tournament the same types will bitch just as loud about how the selection/matchup/whatever is unfair or a joke.

College football is my favorite sport, but for me any sort of national championship is anti-climactic.  I'll always get more enjoyment out of the regular season plus some of the bowls than I do with a national championship game or would with a playoffs-type scenario.  Frankly I wouldn't mind if they returned to the pre-Bowl Alliance days and just relied on polls to determine the "national champion".  There is a very wide range of styles of play and types of talent throughout college football (and I hope that never changes-- a SuperDivision or whatever would take a lot of the fun out of it for me).  I think obsessing over an indisputable national champion is trying to put too fine a point on things.

I think that's fine if they want to stay more traditional.  If they do then they should get rid of the national championship nonsense.  The rankings are seriously goofy when you are comparing such diverse schedules, and having the BCS push it as something important or to be taken seriously just causes irritation amongst the anti-BCS crowd.

[grumbler]

Should be a six-team playoff with a selection and seeding committee, much like the Big Dance has.

[Barrister]

Playoffs next year?

Looks like it.  *fingers crossed*

Granted it is not a Canadian style 80 team playoff or anything.  Just the top 4 but that works for me.

"Canadian style"?

I'll have you know that in CIS Football only 17 out of 26 teams make the playoffs rounds.

[Valmy]

"Canadian style"?

I'll have you know that in CIS Football only 17 out of 26 teams make the playoffs rounds.

Oh well then I stand corrected.

[Barrister]

"Canadian style"?

I'll have you know that in CIS Football only 17 out of 26 teams make the playoffs rounds.

Oh well then I stand corrected.

Well good then. 

[derspiess]

I am not sure I agree with this strawman portrayal of anti-BCS types.  Just because you have an issue with the system does not make you an insane fanatic.  I just disagree with the elitism of the system.

Okay, you're not in the 95% then

I'm just saying that for a lot of people bitching about the BCS has become self-sustaining, almost like a sport within a sport.  For them, no practical solution will make them happy.

A plus 1 gives the next generation's Utah, TCU, and Boise State a chance to win it all.  No team should win all their regular season and post season games and not be the national champion.  That just does not make any sense.  Is that not a sensible position?  Saying otherwise sounds like insane ravings to me but that is what we have.

I can see why you say it makes no sense, but I don't have a problem with it.  I think we'd just end up seeing those teams get embarrassed with a +1 or tournament system.  But again the "national champion" thing doesn't mean that much to me.

Besides it sorta sounds like you yourself are anti-BCS and have a problem with its entire reason for existance.

I sort of am, for different reasons than most people obviously.  But I tolerate it because it keeps the bowls and has benefited WVU.

[Valmy]

I sort of am, for different reasons than most people obviously.  But I tolerate it because it keeps the bowls and has benefited WVU.

Just to be clear I want to keep both.  The playoff would only be for the select few and the bowls remain as a reward for a 6-6...er...successful season.

I think we'd just end up seeing those teams get embarrassed with a +1 or tournament system.

Why do you think this?  TCU, Utah, and Boise State all beat their major school opponents.  Where is the evidence to suggest they would be embarrassed?  Besides that so what?  Clemson got embarrassed and nobody is demanding the ACC be protected from embarrasment by keeping them out of bowl games against West Virginia.

[Barrister]

I just wanted to second Valmy's point.  The performance of non-BCS schools in BCS games hardly leads to the conclusion they'd be embarassed.