The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Oh My! This should shake up the rankings. Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win?
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? Can they? Yes they will Should they? Now that's the question...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 Can they? Yes they willShould they? Now that's the question... Undefeated team beats the #4 team (that was #1 for 5 or 6 weeks). Anything less than #3 is a travesty. Actually, I would say #2 SHOULD be a given...but, it is unlikely.
BuffaloBill Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Oh My! This should shake up the rankings. Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? begs the question why are there not playoffs in Div I football?
PromoTheRobot Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Utah destroyed 'Bama. BCS rankings are a joke. We need a playoff. PTR
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 begs the question why are there not playoffs in Div I football? I can think of $everal million rea$on$ why Div I $chools don't want a playoff
Beerball Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I can think of $everal million rea$on$ why Div I $chools don't want a playoff Splain that to me Slash. Would the networks give less if an 8 team playoff was established? Would the bowls be adversly affected if this played out over 3 weekends? You've got to be right, but I just can't figure it out.
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Splain that to me Slash. Would the networks give less if an 8 team playoff was established? Would the bowls be adversly affected if this played out over 3 weekends? You've got to be right, but I just can't figure it out. There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams...
Dr. Fong Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I know it's a tired discussion, but they REALLY need a friggin playoff. The argument that the athletes would miss too much time from school is nonsense considering how long the bowl season is.
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams... I still don't understand. Are all of these minor bowl making money? If they are, can't they still exist and host the crappy teams they currently host? The teams in the International Bowl, for example, have no hopes of being #1 or #8, so how does a playoff impact that bowl?
Dr. Fong Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams... Why can't you have your cake and eat it too? I mean it's not like the vast majority of those bowl games have any bearing on the national championship picture. So with the playoffs you could still have the bowl matchups for the teams that don't get into the playoff and still have the playoffs.
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 Also, the big pain in the ass bowl, is the Rose Bowl. The rest of the schools should want that bowl knocked down a peg, out of general principle. the fact that USC gets a home bowl game almost every year, should be offensive to the NCAA.
Mark Vader Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Does the NCAA have any idea how much money they would make if they had a playoff system? They have 34 bowl games which means 68 teams are eligible for post season play. Thats more teams than in the college basketball tournament. They should do exactly like basketball, pick 64 teams, and have them play from the end of the season in early December and play until mid January. Thats 6 weekends of post season play. All the higher seeds would play at their home stadium. Then you could have the national championship in a neutral sight. Does this make enough sense?
Rubes Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 UTAH!!!! What a spanking! Utes rock. Makes it hard to believe there isn't a playoff.
Beerball Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I still don't understand. Are all of these minor bowl making money? If they are, can't they still exist and host the crappy teams they currently host? The teams in the International Bowl, for example, have no hopes of being #1 or #8, so how does a playoff impact that bowl? Yeah, that's where I always get stuck. The other bowls wouldn't suffer one bit. The way it is today only 2 teams have a shot at the 'championship', yet those other bowls survive and teams are happy to play in them. Start a playoff and suddenly you have 8 teams with a chance to win it all.
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 Does the NCAA have any idea how much money they would make if they had a playoff system? They have 34 bowl games which means 68 teams are eligible for post season play. Thats more teams than in the college basketball tournament. They should do exactly like basketball, pick 64 teams, and have them play from the end of the season in early December and play until mid January. Thats 6 weekends of post season play. All the higher seeds would play at their home stadium. Then you could have the national championship in a neutral sight. Does this make enough sense? Or, you could use the existing bowls for the games, instead of home fields...that's how you protect the current bowl games. The crappy bowls could host the early games...that still has to be better for them than what they get now. But, there is no chance of a 64 team playoff, IMO...and it really isn't necessary. I'd be happy with an 8-team playoff.
buckeyemike Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 I'd be happy with an 8-team playoff. ...and then the #9 ranked team would be whining and moaning that they didn't get into the playoff. You're not going to satisfy everyone, even if there is a playoff. BTW, I tend to agree with you, Dean. An 8 team playoff, with the existence of the other bowls unaffected, is the way to go.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 the playoff system is enough of a pipedream. there is no way they would or could make it a 64 team playoff. it would most likely be an 8 team "post-season" and mike is right, that just shifts the complaining down to the teams ranked 9, 10 and 11. and i think they would still most likely keep all of the other bowl games. i like the bowl system. not for its fairness of picking a champion, but because it gives me a lot of "meaningful" games to watch. id still prefer that they move the majority of the games back to Jan. 1, but whatever.
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Posted January 3, 2009 ...and then the #9 ranked team would be whining and moaning that they didn't get into the playoff. You're not going to satisfy everyone, even if there is a playoff. BTW, I tend to agree with you, Dean. An 8 team playoff, with the existence of the other bowls unaffected, is the way to go. Of course the #9 team will whine...but, they weren't going to be #1 under any circumstances, after the bowls, so it doesn't impact the Championship. (Utah, this year, really tested that theory, though, as they were #7 in some polls.)
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Posted January 3, 2009 Of course the #9 team will whine...but, they weren't going to be #1 under any circumstances, after the bowls, so it doesn't impact the Championship. (Utah, this year, really tested that theory, though, as they were #7 in some polls.) saying that a lower ranking team "wouldnt have been #1 anyways" flies in the face of the entire point of the playoff system. its so the teams ranked 7 and 8 have a shot of showing everyone they are for real. why not 9 and 10?
Recommended Posts