KD in CA Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 One solution is to not have any pre-season polls and have the first one at week 5 10 so the order is based on what happens on the field rather than what is anticipated to happen. Fixed. Never happen of course, since TV gets too much value out of hyping games based on rankings. Alabama would have to lose at least 4 games before dropping out of the top 15, simply because they were annointed as the best team before the season started. And hence the myth of the superiority of certain conferences is perpetuated (oh, look how many top 25 schools are in my conference!)
NyQuil Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Problem is these bigger schools don't want to play Boise and TCU. Boise and TCU reach out to play other schools from the "better" BCS divisions but they decline them wanting to play cupcakes instead. It is beyond me why college football 1- Doesn't have a playoff and 2- Lets the schools create their own schedules (I understand letting them have some sort of say but there needs to be a 3rd party that ultimately decides their schedules). Boise and TCU want 1-1 contracts. They dont want a home game against Nebraska and then have to go to Memorial Stadium three times.
Mr. WEO Posted November 25, 2010 Author Posted November 25, 2010 At least one college coach has been advocating a 64-team playoff for a couple of years now... Mike Leach Pushes for 'Mainstream' 64-Team College Football Playoff Mike Leach's Playoff Will Change World youtube.com/watch?v=l5Wm_vCbQEM (FF to 2:40 mark for playoff discussion) Wow, Leach came up with the genius idea of having 64 teams get together at the end of the season for some sort of playoff-style "tournament" to decide a national champion? Unbelievable! I bet he's already thought up some catchy phrases like "Sweet 16" and Elite 8" and "The Final 4". This guy is amazing!
SouthGeorgiaBillsFan Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 (edited) Fixed. Never happen of course, since TV gets too much value out of hyping games based on rankings. Alabama would have to lose at least 4 games before dropping out of the top 15, simply because they were annointed as the best team before the season started. And hence the myth of the superiority of certain conferences is perpetuated (oh, look how many top 25 schools are in my conference!) Do you really think it is a myth that the SEC and Big 10 are superior conferences to the MAC and MWC? I mean seriously? Certain conferences ARE superior, and to just pretend that isn't true is pretty absurd. Edited November 25, 2010 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan
ohiotim Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 This thread reminded me why I stopped paying attention to college football as anything more than a farm system for the NFL. When "preseason rankings" and "voting" determine whether or not you get to play in corporate bowl games, you don't have a sport, you have a dog and pony show. Clearly, college football would never benefit from a playoff system, because as you know, millions of college basketball fans stop watching once March Madness rolls around. Or wait, is it the other way around, that millions of casual or even less on-lookers suddenly become rabid basketball junkies for a few weeks? Yes, playoffs are bad for business and interest. Lets just put the b.s. aside and say what the real reason Boise St. is not "worthy" of the big game - tv ratings. Much like major league baseball, regionalism drives the sport. When Texas and San Francisco played in the World Series, ESPN pundits talked about the lack of national interest. Has the Super Bowl ever suffered the same way? Does having small market teams like Green Bay or Buffalo play in a Super Bowl drive down the ratings? Methinks not. Yet, if it isn't the Yankees and/or Red Sox, the World Series is nothing more than a future trivia question for most of America. Same thing for college football. Guarantee more casual NFL fans know the Saints won the Super Bowl last year than casual college football fans can name whoever won the BCS championship last year. And, of course, I have a solution. Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff.
seq004 Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Another objective opinion from an Ohio State fan in Columbus. Watch the Wisconson game E Gordan Geek.
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff. If the PAC-1X has its way, there won't be but 1 major conference west of the Mississippi.
KD in CA Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Do you really think it is a myth that the SEC and Big 10 are superior conferences to the MAC and MWC? I mean seriously? Certain conferences ARE superior, and to just pretend that isn't true is pretty absurd. Are they better? Yes. Are they so much better than teams from the MAC or MWC or any other non-big money sanctioned conference that those teams should not be allowed to compete for a title under any circumstances? No. Enjoy your championship of 3 1/2 conferences, because that's what you have. Lets just put the b.s. aside and say what the real reason Boise St. is not "worthy" of the big game - tv ratings. Much like major league baseball, regionalism drives the sport. /thread.
Sisyphean Bills Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 /thread. Not so fast. Regionalism is only relevant if fans are "region centric" in their entertainment. Boise has many fans across the country that like to watch them play football because they are damn good. I'd bet a fair number of them don't know where Boise is on a map.
Cynical Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff. Great idea. Except: - At present and last count, there are 110 schools that play Div 1A football. Your scenario allows 80 teams to compete for the big one, leaving 30 schools never getting the chance to play for the big game. So, how exactly did you "fix" the BCS problem? - Your scenario assumes a "status-quo" among the schools. If you think the outrage is bad regarding Boise State now, imagine if they were one of the 30 teams not allowed to play for the big game. The cries of injustice would make the ones we see now look weak. - How does a "non-playoff" team become one of the 80 "playoff schools"? Who gets to decide which team gets bumped out? - And yes, this is a serious question, how does this realignment impact college basket ball?
Cynical Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Boise and TCU want 1-1 contracts. They dont want a home game against Nebraska and then have to go to Memorial Stadium three times. Interesting. Didn't realize BSU wanted a home - home series, especially when they have stated, in public, they are willing to travel to opponents field to play a single game, but they can't do that, because "nobody will schedule them". Since you brought up Nebraska, Nebraska was willing to do a home-home series (1-1 as you call it), but BSU's refusal to compromise on their $1M demand to play a game away from their home field essentially killed any deal Nebraska tried to put forth. BSU supporters need to realize BSU is going to struggle to find big schools willing to play them at BSU. And no, it's not because other schools are afraid of them, it has to do with another problem. More precisely, 35,000 smaller problems. 35,000 - that's the size of the stadium at BSU. When the big schools agree to do an out of conference game, one of the major sticking points are tickets for the fan base. Alabama was paid $200K to travel to Duke, but they also received 6200 tickets. Alabama vs. Penn State home-home series - the away team will receive $200K and 5300 tickets. Do you honestly think BSU will cough up 6000 tickets to an opponent the larger more popular schools are going to demand?
ohiotim Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Great idea. Except: - At present and last count, there are 110 schools that play Div 1A football. Your scenario allows 80 teams to compete for the big one, leaving 30 schools never getting the chance to play for the big game. So, how exactly did you "fix" the BCS problem? Why does there have to be 110, just because there are now? I went to a MAC school, but realistically, they're never going to compete for a championship. Just look at the State of Ohio. If you're a high school talent, you're going to OSU, not BG, Toledo, Miami, Kent, Akron, etc. Axe the bottom 30, they can play Division 2 or I-A, or whatever the next level is. Exclusivity is positive, not a negative. It means a higher level of competition. One of my biggest pet peeves is when Ohio State plays a team like Akron and pretends its a legit contest. In reality, the wide out at OSU is gonna be playing on Sunday's in a year or two, and the cornerback from Akron will be looking for a real job. I want to eliminate those competition deficiencies. - Your scenario assumes a "status-quo" among the schools. If you think the outrage is bad regarding Boise State now, imagine if they were one of the 30 teams not allowed to play for the big game. The cries of injustice would make the ones we see now look weak. See above. - How does a "non-playoff" team become one of the 80 "playoff schools"? Who gets to decide which team gets bumped out? Well, since I'm president of the new BIG 80 league, this is my rule. If a school violates rules, they are suspended from play and kicked down to the 2nd tier, and a team from the 2nd tier (perhaps the previous year's champion) moves up. - And yes, this is a serious question, how does this realignment impact college basket ball? It doesn't. All basketball is still run by the NCAA with their own conferences. Same as with college hockey and other sports. Look, I'm not saying this is gonna happen. I'm just saying that as it stands now, myself and a number of my friends aren't into college football as fervently as we are pro because there is no playoff and the ranking system is awful.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 25, 2010 Posted November 25, 2010 Boise is one of the best and most balanced teams in football and are every bit deserving of their ranking
DrDawkinstein Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 Auburn better wake up and start playing some football before they end up being another 1-loss team and ruining it for the SEC!
1B4IDie Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 Auburn better wake up and start playing some football before they end up being another 1-loss team and ruining it for the SEC! After Auburn gets smoked today and if LSU leapfrogs to #2 TCU can blow a gasket or 12.
DrDawkinstein Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 After Auburn gets smoked today and if LSU leapfrogs to #2 TCU can blow a gasket or 12. If LSU ends up #2, Im happy with that. It's impossible to watch the level of competition in the SEC and say one of these teams doesnt deserve to be at the top of the rankings.
DrDawkinstein Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 Boise is one of the best and most balanced teams in football and are every bit deserving of their ranking the problem with that statement is that it is based largely on opinion, and very little actual proof. im not disagreeing with it, but i cant agree with it either, until they prove it. when it comes to Boise, im basically Agnostic.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 the problem with that statement is that it is based largely on opinion, and very little actual proof. im not disagreeing with it, but i cant agree with it either, until they prove it. when it comes to Boise, im basically Agnostic. But that's the thing. When you do subjective rankings instead of traditional competition, there's nothing BUT opinion. The only truth is the win-loss records. If you don't lose any games, you shouldn't be eliminated.
PromoTheRobot Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 If LSU ends up #2, Im happy with that. It's impossible to watch the level of competition in the SEC and say one of these teams doesnt deserve to be at the top of the rankings. Then just come out and say non-BCS schools are excluded, because they are. If the BCS wants a members-only championship then fine. Just stop pretending that it's open to everyone. PTR
DrDawkinstein Posted November 26, 2010 Posted November 26, 2010 But that's the thing. When you do subjective rankings instead of traditional competition, there's nothing BUT opinion. The only truth is the win-loss records. If you don't lose any games, you shouldn't be eliminated. if your main criteria for a "top ranked" team is simply WL, then no team should schedule games against any other major program. everyone should just play Boise's schedule instead of real teams, and then NCAA football would just suck. given the current system, if a team wants to be taken seriously, they should have a few quality wins under their belt. to say Boise has 2 "quality" wins is stretching it. strength of schedule should be at least an equal qualifier as WL. Let's say 1 loss = 10 SOS points. And therefore, a 1-loss team that has a SOS ranking 10 points harder than a 0-loss team, should be equally considered for the Championship. (im just making up the quantity of SOS points, but you get my point). had any of the major SEC teams lost to a small program team, or a mid-level OOC program (say Alabama loses to North Carolina) then I can understand dropping them. But the reality is that you have high ranked teams losing to teams that were once ranked in the top 5 (and even #1).
Recommended Posts