PDA

View Full Version : BCS blather



Pages : 1 [2]

Chip R
12-05-2011, 02:51 PM
I think "better story" is just a euphemism for "more fans traveling and higher TV ratings. :D

Sure. That's what it's all about. If they were interested in finding out who is the better team they would have playoffs.

Roy Tucker
12-05-2011, 02:57 PM
Michigan had the misfortune of losing on the last day of the regular season. Alabama was lucky enough to lose a few weeks ago. That's really about it.

I never thought of it that way, but that's very true.

It's the poll dynamic of "when did you lose?". Alabama had the chance to bubble back up. If Alabama would have lost to LSU in the SEC championship game then I seriously doubt they would have been in the NC game.

One thing I've come to the realization of during this BCS brouhaha is LSU is awfully daggone good. Like, one of the best seasons ever during the BCS era.

jojo
12-05-2011, 02:59 PM
Rematch talk started about two minutes after Bama lost though.... I don't think timing much mattered.

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 03:03 PM
I never thought of it that way, but that's very true.

It's the poll dynamic of "when did you lose?". Alabama had the chance to bubble back up. If Alabama would have lost to LSU in the SEC championship game then I seriously doubt they would have been in the NC game.

One thing I've come to the realization of during this BCS brouhaha is LSU is awfully daggone good. Like, one of the best seasons ever during the BCS era.

What if LSU lost to Georgia on Saturday? Concensus opinion is that LSU would still make it

Chip R
12-05-2011, 03:06 PM
What if LSU lost to Georgia on Saturday? Concensus opinion is that LSU would still make it

Yes. But they still would have only had 1 loss. The precedent had already been set when Oklahoma lost to K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game and still made the BCS Championship game. If Bama had lost to Georgia in the SEC Championship game, they would have had 2 losses.

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 03:12 PM
Yes. But they still would have only had 1 loss. The precedent had already been set when Oklahoma lost to K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game and still made the BCS Championship game. If Bama had lost to Georgia in the SEC Championship game, they would have had 2 losses.

The 2007 national champs LSU took their 2nd loss on the last day of the regular season, Nov 23, although I admit that season was a freaky

How did UCLA's blowout loss in the PAC 12 championship not keep them from Bowl eligibility? 6-7 teams should not be bowling

BuckeyeRed27
12-05-2011, 03:20 PM
The 2007 national champs LSU took their 2nd loss on the last day of the regular season, Nov 23, although I admit that season was a freaky

How did UCLA's blowout loss in the PAC 12 championship not keep them from Bowl eligibility? 6-7 teams should not be bowling

Their is some loophole that if your 7th loss comes in a Championship game and the your conference can't fill its bowl allotments that you can still go to a bowl.

Chip R
12-05-2011, 03:29 PM
How did UCLA's blowout loss in the PAC 12 championship not keep them from Bowl eligibility? 6-7 teams should not be bowling

They filed some kind of waiver to get into a bowl before the Pac 12 CG. It has something to do with losing to USC cause they are on probation. :dunno:

Sea Ray
12-05-2011, 03:48 PM
They filed some kind of waiver to get into a bowl before the Pac 12 CG. It has something to do with losing to USC cause they are on probation. :dunno:

:lol:

That's exhibit A for evidence that the system is screwed up!

dabvu2498
12-05-2011, 04:39 PM
Michigan had the misfortune of losing on the last day of the regular season. Alabama was lucky enough to lose a few weeks ago. That's really about it.

Also, if I recall correctly, OSU-Michigan happened and that ended Michigan's regular season. Then in the next two weeks, Florida beat Florida State and then Arkansas in the last 2 weeks of the season. Florida's loss in 2006 happened on 10-14. No doubt timing would have had something to do with how all that went down.

jojo
12-05-2011, 04:46 PM
Also, if I recall correctly, OSU-Michigan happened and that ended Michigan's regular season. Then in the next two weeks, Florida beat Florida State and then Arkansas in the last 2 weeks of the season. Florida's loss in 2006 happened on 10-14. No doubt timing would have had something to do with how all that went down.

If the Big 12* had a conference championship game this year, OSU would be in the BCS championship game (assuming they indeed won).

cumberlandreds
12-06-2011, 07:49 AM
Michigan had the misfortune of losing on the last day of the regular season. Alabama was lucky enough to lose a few weeks ago. That's really about it.

I think there is a lot truth to that. If Bama and LSU played Thanksgiving weekend we may have had a different championship game.
A four team playoff would look really nice this year. Top 4 BCS teams, LSU vs Stanford and Bama vs OK State.

Hoosier Red
12-06-2011, 07:54 AM
A question that I should really know the answer to, but am just now wondering. Does it matter how close you are to another team in each poll or just your absolute poll position?
ie. If Alabama were 1 vote ahead of OK state in the coaches or Harris poll, would that count the same as being 100 votes ahead so long as they are still ranked #s 2 and 3?

HotCorner
12-06-2011, 09:02 AM
The system is seriously flawed when coaches (or SID's or whoever) have a direct influence on determining the outcome. Reeks of conflict of interest.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/story/2011-final-coaches-ballots/51647436/1

jojo
12-06-2011, 09:26 AM
We've got the one loss, 7th ranked team in the country playing in a bowl three days before Christmas, a 6-7 team in a bowl game on New Year's Eve that pits two teams who have fired their coaches against one another in a game that follows the mighty matchup between two 6-6 teams in the Mienke Who Cares Bowl, another edge of your seat matchup between two 6-6 teams battling on January 2nd and of course, the penultimate game of the season is actually a rematch with Bama already claiming a share of their 14th imaginary national title because they'll be the only team that was good enough to lose to LSU twice.

Thank goodness Tiger is winning again.

Slyder
12-06-2011, 09:35 AM
I'll actually watch the Fiesta and of course the Orange bowl but the Sugar is not so sweet. Neither Michigan or Va Tech deserve to even SNIFF a BcS game. And just in protest since all we heard about, before this year, is that the regular season is a playoff I will not watch the National Championship since we saw it already 9-6.

I'll be the one to ask should LSU lose shouldn't they get an opportunity to host Alabama as a tiebreaker? Because that's how much of a f'ing joke the game is.

Sea Ray
12-06-2011, 05:16 PM
Although I "think" Alabama is the best team next to LSU as a fan I want someone else. I think Bama had their chance. Defenders of this system can no longer say that "every week is a playoff" in college football. It's another example of why any system that attempts to narrow the "playoff field" to two is flawed

texasdave
01-10-2012, 06:05 AM
Bump.


Years from now, this BCS National Championship Game won’t be remembered so much for Alabama’s utter domination of LSU as it will the beginning of radical change in college football. A national playoff is coming, everyone.It’s only a matter of what it looks like.“It gets done,” a high-ranking BCS official told Sporting News Monday evening.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-10/lsualabama/story/even-with-playoff-coming-sec-still-big-winner-lsu-alabama-national-title-game#ixzz1j3JQc3Lr

HotCorner
01-10-2012, 08:57 AM
I say use the 4 BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar), the Cotton Bowl (playing at Jerry Jones' playhouse) and the Chic-fil-a Bowl (Atlanta) for the hosting sites of an 8-team playoff. Each bowl would host a semifinal every four years and that respective site would host the national championship every 6 years.

For example, Year 1

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Atlanta, Pasadena, Dallas)

Year 2

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Miami, Tempe, Dallas)

Year 3

Round 1:

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 2

Sugar (New Orleans)
Cotton (Dallas)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (Atlanta, Miami, Tempe, Pasadena)

etc ...

This would rotate every year with sites swapping between rounds 1 and 2. The ratings for all of these games would dramatically higher. I would also believe ticket sales would be higher because it's no longer a glorified scrimmage. So while fan bases of these team my not travel for all games fans of college football who live near these sites would probably make up the difference.

Sea Ray
01-10-2012, 09:06 AM
Bump.



Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-10/lsualabama/story/even-with-playoff-coming-sec-still-big-winner-lsu-alabama-national-title-game#ixzz1j3JQc3Lr


http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/feed/2011-10/lsualabama/story/even-with-playoff-coming-sec-still-big-winner-lsu-alabama-national-title-game

I'm not getting my hopes up. At best we'll get one more game out of these discussions

Slyder
01-10-2012, 09:18 AM
I'm not getting my hopes up. At best we'll get one more game out of these discussions

I'd love to see how Alabama would have game planned for a legitimate QB and offense like Oklahoma State. +1 is 100000000 times better than the garbage we have, it at least makes them prove it on the field rather than by computers or by human error.

Sea Ray
01-10-2012, 09:39 AM
I'd love to see how Alabama would have game planned for a legitimate QB and offense like Oklahoma State. +1 is 100000000 times better than the garbage we have, it at least makes them prove it on the field rather than by computers or by human error.

Yet there's no system that would have eliminated LSU. The controversy was over whether Alabama made it

nmculbreth
01-10-2012, 10:57 AM
I'm not getting my hopes up. At best we'll get one more game out of these discussions

While I'd prefer an eight team playoff, adding a plus one championship game would be a big improvement over the current system.

I'd have been far more interested in an LSU vs. Alabama rematch if they'd beaten Stanford and Oklahoma State to get there.

Hoosier Red
01-10-2012, 11:51 AM
Dan Wetzel wrote an interesting piece a few weeks ago about a 4 team playoff that even seemed to be amenable to the Rose Bowl and Pac 12, two of the three remaining sticks in the mud.

The four BCS bowls would rotate the championship game just as they do now. Three bowls would rotate as the two semi-final games every year. The exception is the Rose Bowl which didn't want to be part of that, which greatly benefits the other three. The Rose Bowl's perk is that it keeps the January 1, 5:00 PM time slot every year without exception.

The other twist here is that the BCS qualifyer is gone. Bowls were free to contract with whatever conference they wanted. The Rose Bowl could go back to being Big 10 vs Pac Ten every year. This would have been very nice for the Sugar bowl for instance which having lost the top two SEC schools, would still have been able to bring in Georgia or Arkansas if they wished.

I think this would put more pressure on the smaller conferences to either join forces or join a more established conference in order to secure a contract with a big bowl, but it wouldn't have any impact on their ability to make the National Semi-finals.

Anyway, it's an interesting thought.

TeamSelig
01-10-2012, 01:40 PM
I guess it was pretty obvious Alabama had their chance and didn't deserve another shot at LSU.

jojo
01-10-2012, 08:04 PM
It was the least watched championship game in BCS history.

Chip R
01-10-2012, 11:11 PM
It was the least watched championship game in BCS history.

But still the 2nd most watched show in cable history. Last year's BCS championship game was #1.

RedsBaron
01-11-2012, 06:45 AM
After a half dozen years the SEC actually lost a BCS championship game, so you would think that would make SEC haters happy.....oh wait, it took having another SEC team in the championship game for that to happen. ;)

Todd Gack
01-11-2012, 07:29 AM
I guess it was pretty obvious Alabama had their chance and didn't deserve another shot at LSU.

Nah, it's the fact that Alabama won and they're NC when both teams beat each other once. It makes no sense to crown them NC right now. Not to mention, LSU had the most impressive resume in recent memory.

IslandRed
01-11-2012, 02:29 PM
(Responding to no one in particular)

Paraphrasing some sportswriter on Twitter: If you have a system with a championship game, and people are arguing the loser of that game should still be champion, your system is broken.

To which I'll add: It's broken, but that's how it is. Set up the rules and then play it out. Change the rules for next time if need be.

TeamSelig
01-11-2012, 11:40 PM
Nah, it's the fact that Alabama won and they're NC when both teams beat each other once. It makes no sense to crown them NC right now. Not to mention, LSU had the most impressive resume in recent memory.

LSU squeaked out a win vs Bama because Bama missed so many easy FGs. Bama just destroyed LSU. They are easily the #1 team IMO.

Slyder
01-12-2012, 03:06 AM
LSU squeaked out a win vs Bama because Bama missed so many easy FGs. Bama just destroyed LSU. They are easily the #1 team IMO.

They still lost vs LSU the first time.

Todd Gack
01-12-2012, 09:45 AM
LSU squeaked out a win vs Bama because Bama missed so many easy FGs. Bama just destroyed LSU. They are easily the #1 team IMO.

ON ALABAMA's HOME FIELD. Do you think it's easy to win on the road?

Again, LSU ALSO had the most impressive resume in recent memory. They beat 3 teams who won BCS bowl games (ON THE ROAD, MIND YOU), had the same amount of losses as Alabama, and yet they're somehow CLEARLY #2. :confused:

dougdirt
01-12-2012, 10:09 AM
ON ALABAMA's HOME FIELD. Do you think it's easy to win on the road?

Again, LSU ALSO had the most impressive resume in recent memory. They beat 3 teams who won BCS bowl games (ON THE ROAD, MIND YOU), had the same amount of losses as Alabama, and yet they're somehow CLEARLY #2. :confused:

Yes, they are clearly not #1. An overtime win against Alabama that with most kickers in the country, Alabama wins outright and a 21 point loss against Alabama with everything on the line means they aren't better than Alabama. Not sure what is confusing about that.

Todd Gack
01-12-2012, 10:24 AM
Yes, they are clearly not #1. An overtime win against Alabama that with most kickers in the country, Alabama wins outright and a 21 point loss against Alabama with everything on the line means they aren't better than Alabama. Not sure what is confusing about that.

So LSU plays one extra game, plays a schedule that laughs at Alabama, they both lost to each other, (LSU won on the road btw), and you're arguing that Alabama is more deserving AFTER they get a 2nd chance at a rematch?

Ok doug.

jojo
01-12-2012, 11:09 AM
Yes, they are clearly not #1. An overtime win against Alabama that with most kickers in the country, Alabama wins outright and a 21 point loss against Alabama with everything on the line means they aren't better than Alabama. Not sure what is confusing about that.

Using "with most kickers in the country" as a premise is analogous to cherry picking though. The kicking game is an important phase of the game that like offense and defense also confers a tangible advantage (or disadvantage). Clearly in the first Bama/LSU game, Saban was pushing the boundries of his kicking game by making the conscious decision to attempt several that were beyond the safe range/ability of his kicking game.

Basically in the first game, Miles played field position and Saban was more agressive and Miles won.

Besides, if Quinn Sharp makes a 37-yard field-goal at the end of the Iowa State game that most kickers in the country would've made, then this whole conversation is moot because OSU would've played LSU in New Orleans....

dougdirt
01-12-2012, 11:09 AM
So LSU plays one extra game, plays a schedule that laughs at Alabama, they both lost to each other, (LSU won on the road btw), and you're arguing that Alabama is more deserving AFTER they get a 2nd chance at a rematch?

Ok doug.

I am arguing it because Alabama was the better team. LSU has better wins. That doesn't make them a better team.

And LSU didn't play one extra game. The only way they weren't going to play that 13th game was if they finished below .500 on the season.

dougdirt
01-12-2012, 11:11 AM
Using "with most kickers in the country" as a premise is analogous to cherry picking though. The kicking game is an important phase of the game that like offense and defense also confers a tangible advantage (or disadvantage). Clearly in the first Bama/LSU game, Saban was pushing the boundries of his kicking game by making the conscious decision to attempt several that were beyond the safe range/ability of his kicking game.

Besides, if Quinn Sharp makes a 37-yard field-goal at the end of the Iowa State game that most kickers in the country would've made, then this whole conversation is moot because OSU would've played LSU in New Orleans....

I guess that is true..... but even then I would still argue that Alabama was the best team in the country because LSU would have smacked OSU in the face and I have believed since before the first game that Alabama was better than LSU.

jojo
01-12-2012, 11:18 AM
I am arguing it because Alabama was the better team. LSU has better wins. That doesn't make them a better team.

And LSU didn't play one extra game. The only way they weren't going to play that 13th game was if they finished below .500 on the season.

Come on Doug. Bama played 13 games. LSU had to play 14 with the additional game being a conferrence championship game in what most consider the strongest conference in football this year against an opponent that was ranked 14th in the country at the time.

What was Bama doing? Watching an extra game (and gathering more data)while getting an additional 7 days to prepare for LSU and for key players to recover from injury.

dougdirt
01-12-2012, 11:45 AM
Come on Doug. Bama played 13 games. LSU had to play 14 with the additional game being a conferrence championship game in what most consider the strongest conference in football this year against an opponent that was ranked 14th in the country at the time.

What was Bama doing? Watching an extra game (and gathering more data)while getting an additional 7 days to prepare for LSU and for key players to recover from injury.
For some reason I completely had forgotten about the SEC Championship game. 2.5 hours of sleep last night.... viable excuse?

Still, I don't think that game made an ounce of a difference when it came to playing Alabama.

Sea Ray
01-12-2012, 11:47 AM
For some reason I completely had forgotten about the SEC Championship game. 2.5 hours of sleep last night.... viable excuse?

Still, I don't think that game made an ounce of a difference when it came to playing Alabama.

Doug, what are you arguing? Surely you're not arguing that Bama should have played someone else in the championship game?

dougdirt
01-12-2012, 12:24 PM
Doug, what are you arguing? Surely you're not arguing that Bama should have played someone else in the championship game?

No, I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that had Oklahoma State played LSU, after LSU walked all over them, I would still tell anyone who would listen, that Alabama was the best team in the country.

Sea Ray
01-12-2012, 12:51 PM
No, I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing that had Oklahoma State played LSU, after LSU walked all over them, I would still tell anyone who would listen, that Alabama was the best team in the country.

I understand. That's why they need more than a 2 team playoff. The flaw in the BCS isn't in how it picks its two teams; it's that it only picks two teams. I rarely think the NC really is the best team. (This yr I think USC very well may have won it all were there a playoff.)

jojo
01-12-2012, 01:05 PM
I understand. That's why they need more than a 2 team playoff. The flaw in the BCS isn't in how it picks its two teams; it's that it only picks two teams. I rarely think the NC really is the best team. (This yr I think USC very well may have won it all were there a playoff.)

If there was a 128 team playoff format, USC would not have been eligible.

Roy Tucker
01-12-2012, 01:15 PM
Its all just a matter of when you lost your games.

If you would turn around when the wins happened (Bama wins game #1 and LSU game #2), LSU is #1.

Whether or not what me or anyone else thinks how good a team is, the only thing that should matter is the games they win and who they beat. Everything else is opinion.

MWM
01-12-2012, 01:19 PM
This highlights one of the worst, and most often overlooked, problems with the current system, IMO. I think you can throw a lot of these conversations about who is better out simply because the time between the last game and the championship game is so much that it can change the dynamic of a matchup. I think this is a completely different game were it played a week or two after the SEC title game. Give a team 6 weeks to prepare for a single game, and all the preparation, film watching, etc.... can be thrown out the window because it allows teams and coaches to do things entirely different than they otherwise would do because they have the time. These teams go into the championship game not knowing what to expect. I think this is a huge factor.

bucksfan2
01-12-2012, 01:22 PM
This highlights one of the worst, and most often overlooked, problems with the current system, IMO. I think you can throw a lot of these conversations about who is better out simply because the time between the last game and the championship game is so much that it can change the dynamic of a matchup. I think this is a completely different game were it played a week or two after the SEC title game. Give a team 6 weeks to prepare for a single game, and all the preparation, film watching, etc.... can be thrown out the window because it allows teams and coaches to do things entirely different than they otherwise would do because they have the time. These teams go into the championship game not knowing what to expect. I think this is a huge factor.

Absolutely. The best coaches are able to take the month + to plan and become a better team.

I will say this about LSU. Les Miles is one heck of a recruiter but an awful game coach. I was absolutely shocked that he stuck with Jefferson for the entier game when it was obvious he wasn't getting the job done. But I was even more shocked that with 6 weeks of prep time he couldn't find a way to get Matheau the ball on offense for a handful of snaps. He had the most dangerous player on the field and couldn't scheme anything up.

jojo
01-12-2012, 01:26 PM
Absolutely. The best coaches are able to take the month + to plan and become a better team.

I will say this about LSU. Les Miles is one heck of a recruiter but an awful game coach. I was absolutely shocked that he stuck with Jefferson for the entier game when it was obvious he wasn't getting the job done. But I was even more shocked that with 6 weeks of prep time he couldn't find a way to get Matheau the ball on offense for a handful of snaps. He had the most dangerous player on the field and couldn't scheme anything up.

And the Bama staff schemed to completely take Matheau out of the game.

bucksfan2
01-12-2012, 01:59 PM
And the Bama staff schemed to completely take Matheau out of the game.

How so? I would have given Matheau a handful of offensive snaps which I don't believe LSU did. I don't think Alabama schemed to take him out of the game. I think they schemed to beat LSU while Miles never made any adjustments.

Sea Ray
01-12-2012, 02:08 PM
If there was a 128 team playoff format, USC would not have been eligible.

:doh:
We all know that

jojo
01-12-2012, 02:26 PM
How so? I would have given Matheau a handful of offensive snaps which I don't believe LSU did. I don't think Alabama schemed to take him out of the game. I think they schemed to beat LSU while Miles never made any adjustments.

Tyrann Mathieu mostly was rendered ineffective by the ball control strategy of the Bama offense......I don't remember any real chance that he had to make a play..

Concerning offense, I don't think the honey badger has ever played on that side of the ball for LSU.

Roy Tucker
01-12-2012, 02:36 PM
Alabama strikes me as a grind-it-out kind of team. Nick Saban is the ultimate be-prepared kind of coach and has counters to counters to strategies kind of schemes all prepared and coached. Really hard to sneak something by on him.

Whereas Miles strikes me more as an intuitive and emotional kind of coach. He has such fabulous athletes so he just has to wait for one of them to make a great play and then the feeding frenzy starts and you get caught in an avalanche.

What happened in the BCS game was that the LSU catalyst never happened. Saban and staff had every i dotted and t crossed and were prepared for everything. Miles waited and waited and waited and then it was too late.

bucksfan2
01-12-2012, 03:13 PM
Tyrann Mathieu mostly was rendered ineffective by the ball control strategy of the Bama offense......I don't remember any real chance that he had to make a play..

Concerning offense, I don't think the honey badger has ever played on that side of the ball for LSU.

Alabama attacked Mathieu a couple of times that I can recall. Alabama was pretty aggressive until they got into FG range and then stalled.

Concerning offense, its the national championship game and you need to think outside of the box. When you have the most talented player on the field you need to find a way to get his hands on the ball. Michigan did this with Charles Woodson and Georgia did it with Champ Bailey. They had 6 weeks to figure a way to do an end around or line him up as a WR. They also didn't have him returning kicks when it became clear that their offense wasn't doing anything.

I am not suggesting that they play him on both sides of the ball Chris Gamble style. More what Michigan did with Woodson, get him involved in 5 offensive plays a game becasue if he gets the ball in space, look out.

dabvu2498
01-12-2012, 05:46 PM
Georgia did it with Champ Bailey.

Bailey played quite a bit of WR in the regular season. I seem to recall him even getting some snaps at QB early in his UGa career.

They didn't just dream up plays to get him involved in between the regular season and the bowl game. He was part of their offense all along.

texasdave
01-13-2012, 04:01 AM
NCAA President Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that's what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/01/12/emmert.playoff.support.ap/index.html#ixzz1jKLOuIkz

KronoRed
01-13-2012, 07:32 AM
I like the idea of a small playoff set up of four teams, but the excuse that the players can't take extra games is a huge crock, look at the Div1AA playoffs, North Dakota St played 15 this year, in 2008 Richmond won playing 16, didn't hear about their players collapsing from fatigue.

RedFanAlways1966
01-13-2012, 07:37 AM
I like the idea of a small playoff set up of four teams, but the excuse that the players can't take extra games is a huge crock, look at the Div1AA playoffs, North Dakota St played 15 this year, in 2008 Richmond won playing 16, didn't hear about their players collapsing from fatigue.

Good point. And you'd think a lot of guys on D-I teams that are eligible for the playoffs probably played many extra playoff games in high school before going to college. Most HS teams play 10 regular season games and then anywhere from 4 to 6 playoff games if making it to their state final.

bucksfan2
01-13-2012, 08:36 AM
Bailey played quite a bit of WR in the regular season. I seem to recall him even getting some snaps at QB early in his UGa career.

They didn't just dream up plays to get him involved in between the regular season and the bowl game. He was part of their offense all along.

In Ohio State's bowl game against Oklahoma State a few years back Ted Ginn took snaps at QB. He hadn't taken snaps all season long at QB.

I am not talking about putting the guy in for all the offensive snaps but when you have the best player on the field, 6 weeks to dream up a game plan, I think you would attempt to get him the ball. Heck even if you just run him out wide as a WR to create a distraction. It happens in college football, especially during the bowl season, and its part of the reason I was surprised that Miles didn't attempt to do anything.

Roy Tucker
01-13-2012, 08:43 AM
The reason why there isn't a playoff system is because of the bowls. They are like PACs with Congress only without rules. They exert their influence (i.e. grease the NCAA's palm with big bucks) and then the NCAA comes up with BS reasons (like too many games, players need a rest, don't want to give up the "bowl experience" for the student/athletes, etc etc.) as to why there isn't a playoff system.

And school presidents and ADs allow this to happen when its a crime how much money they are leaving on the table for struggling schools. The bowl tail wags the NCAA dog here.

Bowl honchos have a very sweet deal going and they sure as heck don't want to give it up. That's why there isn't a playoff.

MWM
01-13-2012, 09:18 AM
I agree Roy, which is why I'm not overly enthusiastic about some of the proposals for a plus one, or other options coming from the existing establishment. I want the entire system blown up. As long as they're allowed to continue to exist and line their pockets, what's best for them will always trump what's best for the sport.

jojo
01-13-2012, 09:21 AM
The populace would revolt if the NCAA took away the 6-6 Bowl...

Chip R
01-13-2012, 09:35 AM
NCAA President Mark Emmert would support a four-team playoff in college football -- as long as the field doesn't grow.After giving his annual state of the association speech Thursday in Indianapolis, Emmert acknowledged he would back a small playoff if that's what Bowl Championship Series officials decide to adopt.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/01/12/emmert.playoff.support.ap/index.html#ixzz1jKLOuIkz (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/01/12/emmert.playoff.support.ap/index.html#ixzz1jKLOuIkz)

Tail's not wagging the dog too much here, is it?

gonelong
01-13-2012, 09:49 AM
I do not favor a 4 team playoff, though I suspect it is the neccessary stepping stone to a larger playoff. I favor a playoff with the AQ's each sending a representative of their choice (conference champ) and 2 at large teams. 1st round are home games at top 4 seeds. It'd be interesting to have the 2nd and final round in the same city on back to back weekends. That'd allow you to take vacation and stay the whole week, catching both games if your team wins in the 2nd week.

GL

Sea Ray
01-13-2012, 10:13 AM
If you want a true playoff, you have to do away with the automatic qualifiers

kaldaniels
01-13-2012, 10:21 AM
What am I missing? Wouldn't a properly marketed and sponsored 16 or so team playoff be a bigger cash cow than the current bowl system? You could leave some bowls behind for the teams that don't make the playoff field.

Brutus
01-13-2012, 12:07 PM
What am I missing? Wouldn't a properly marketed and sponsored 16 or so team playoff be a bigger cash cow than the current bowl system? You could leave some bowls behind for the teams that don't make the playoff field.

The entire bowl system combined on about $350 million in net revenue last season to FBS schools. An "NFL style" playoff would net roughly $900 million or more, according to testimony given by Jim Delaney in a congressional hearing a few years back (he actually said four times more than what the BCS currently makes which was about $175 million).

The main reason we don't have a playoff system is because athletics administrators, university presidents and conference commissioners are on the payroll and VIP list of bowl executives. They're basically being bribed to keep the bowls active. That's really about it.

A more minor issue is that if a playoff were to come into existence (which it appears it now will), they want to avoid giving an automatic bid to the smaller conferences, but to give automatic bids to specific conferences while leaving the others out would trigger possible antitrust action. It's not necessarily that they want to avoid giving money to those conferences, as they already do with the BCS, but they enjoy sucking on the power teet and would like to put distance between the haves and have nots.

Personally I think an 8-team playoff is the sweet spot. Not big enough that it diminishes the regular season too much, but just big enough to be entertaining and incorporate enough of college football. However, they'll go to this 'plus-one' model in a seeded variety (a 4-team playoff, in other words) just because it continues to incorporate bowls.

Caveat Emperor
01-13-2012, 02:40 PM
What am I missing? Wouldn't a properly marketed and sponsored 16 or so team playoff be a bigger cash cow than the current bowl system? You could leave some bowls behind for the teams that don't make the playoff field.

What, you want the "CEO" of the Fiesta Bowl, John Junker, to get a real job?

Roy Tucker
01-13-2012, 02:59 PM
I'd like to see the NCAA just set up their own tournament.

Kind of like back in the '40's when they decided to hold their own post-season basketball tournament into the teeth of the bigger NIT. The NIT was bigger and more prestigious and the NCAA was more of an also-ran. But as the years went on, the NCAA got bigger and bigger and became the juggernaut it is now. And the NIT shrank into nothing.

If gonzo money is going to get made off post-season football, I'd rather the bowls get killed off and the money mostly go back into the schools (as it is for basketball) rather than to the bowl fat-cats who really bring nothing to the table.

But I doubt that will happen. Most likely, a 4 and eventually 8 team post-season tournament will happen that will get incorporated into the existing major BCS bowls. I doubt the NCAA will forget their bowl friends and will make sure they are taken care of. One thing I've learned is that the Big Guys always look out for each other.

dougdirt
01-14-2012, 02:25 PM
If other divisions of football can have a playoffs, so can the big boys. This is all about money and the people who have it right now having enough control over the schools to not allow it to happen.

RedsBaron
01-14-2012, 10:13 PM
If other divisions of football can have a playoffs, so can the big boys. This is all about money and the people who have it right now having enough control over the schools to not allow it to happen.

Yep. I totally agree.
Back in the late 1980s through 1996 Marshall University was in the then division AA of college football, which staged a 16 team playoff every season. it was terrific.

Sea Ray
01-17-2012, 04:46 PM
The thing is you don't have to scrap the entire Bowl system for a playoff. You can still have 90% of the bowls as is. UC can still go to the Liberty Bowl. In fact you can set up a system where as a tradition, you call the qtr or semi final games the Sugar/Orange/Fiesta/Rose Bowls. There are a number of ways to do it and it wouldn't screw the Bowls

HotCorner
01-18-2012, 09:26 AM
The thing is you don't have to scrap the entire Bowl system for a playoff. You can still have 90% of the bowls as is. UC can still go to the Liberty Bowl. In fact you can set up a system where as a tradition, you call the qtr or semi final games the Sugar/Orange/Fiesta/Rose Bowls. There are a number of ways to do it and it wouldn't screw the Bowls

Say like this? ;)


I say use the 4 BCS bowls (Rose, Orange, Fiesta, Sugar), the Cotton Bowl (playing at Jerry Jones' playhouse) and the Chic-fil-a Bowl (Atlanta) for the hosting sites of an 8-team playoff. Each bowl would host a semifinal every four years and that respective site would host the national championship every 6 years.

For example, Year 1

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Atlanta, Pasadena, Dallas)

Year 2

Round 1:

Cotton (Dallas)
Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Sugar (New Orleans)

Round 2

Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (NO, Miami, Tempe, Dallas)

Year 3

Round 1:

Fiesta (Tempe)
Orange (Miami)
Chic-fil-a (Atlanta)
Rose (Pasadena)

Round 2

Sugar (New Orleans)
Cotton (Dallas)

Round 3

Site from Round 1 (Atlanta, Miami, Tempe, Pasadena)

etc ...

This would rotate every year with sites swapping between rounds 1 and 2. The ratings for all of these games would dramatically higher. I would also believe ticket sales would be higher because it's no longer a glorified scrimmage. So while fan bases of these team my not travel for all games fans of college football who live near these sites would probably make up the difference.

After I posted this I read that the Rose Bowl would not want a part of this type of system. I'm sure a "lesser" bowl would love to replace the Rose Bowl in playoff style format if the Rose really wanted to keep it's B10/P12 tradition.

Sea Ray
01-18-2012, 01:11 PM
Say like this? ;)



After I posted this I read that the Rose Bowl would not want a part of this type of system. I'm sure a "lesser" bowl would love to replace the Rose Bowl in playoff style format if the Rose really wanted to keep it's B10/P12 tradition.

Yep! Then let all the other Bowls go about their business as usual It's not that tough, is it?

Roy Tucker
01-18-2012, 01:49 PM
I think the problem with getting the current bowls involved in this is that they currently make an obscene amount of money off of them. And they don't want to give that up.

Putting on games like this is not rocket science. Universities and the NFL have nice facilities and I'm sure could host these games for much much cheaper than what the current bowls do.

My point about all this is to use Occam's Razor. If the bowls are the sticking point (and by all indications they are), then just cut them out. What is so special about them? I'm sure there are many southern universities or NFL stadia that would host these NCAA playoff games for a fraction of the cost and the NCAA would rake in money hand over fist.

MWM
01-18-2012, 02:02 PM
What Roy said.

Plus, in a true playoff there needs to be home games.

rdiersin
01-18-2012, 02:20 PM
What Roy said.

Plus, in a true playoff there needs to be home games.

I really agree with this. For a 16 team playoff there are 8 regional games where the top seeds are at home, 4 super-regionals (I hate that term, but that's what they use in baseball) that I figure would be similar regions to basketball, and then the semifinals and championship. The super-regional, semifinal, and championship games would be neutral fields. You could do something similar for a 8 team playoff where the regional games are at the top seeds homes. I just think, even if there aren't home games, there need to be regional games. LSU playing in New Orleans and USC in the Rose Bowl are not really neutral sites, even if the fans are evenly split.

KronoRed
01-18-2012, 02:32 PM
I hate the idea of a 16 team playoff, look at the top 16 before the bowls, I cannot seriously see why some of those teams deserve a shot at the big title.

Chip R
01-18-2012, 02:42 PM
If you really want to get rid of the bowls, go to a 64 team playoff just like the basketball tournament used to be. That way mediocre teams that would normally go to the Pinstripe Bowl would be able to participate in the playoffs and potentially have a shot at the real national championship.

Newport Red
01-18-2012, 10:19 PM
If you really want to get rid of the bowls, go to a 64 team playoff just like the basketball tournament used to be. That way mediocre teams that would normally go to the Pinstripe Bowl would be able to participate in the playoffs and potentially have a shot at the real national championship.

The final 2 teams would be pushing 20 games played.

Chip R
01-18-2012, 11:46 PM
The final 2 teams would be pushing 20 games played.

If a team plays 11 games and wins its conference championship game, then it's 17 games. Only one more than they play in the NFL. I'm not crazy about a 64 team football tournament but that will definitely compensate teams who go to the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl and would feel left out by playoffs. It might be a bit too much but high school teams play 4-6 playoff games to win a championship. FBS players can't do that? Right now there are 34 bowl games plus the BCS Championship game. In a 64 team playoff 4 teams that would normally go to bowl games are left out. Are there going to be a lot of people sympathetic if UCLA, Iowa State, Utah State and Nevada get left out of the playoffs? ESPN should be all over this. Instead of showing some lame bowl game on Wednesday evening between Who Cares U and I Don't Know State, you have Ohio State or Alabama or Florida State in a do or die game. Just like in the basketball tournament there will be some upsets. I'm no expert but I have to believe that a playoff game is going to have a lot more people watching than some minor bowl game.

Sea Ray
01-19-2012, 09:15 AM
A 64 team playoff is just nuts for div 1A football. It's nothing more than internet fodder. That would mean over half the teams make the field. It makes no sense on many, many levels. So much so it's not worth the time and bandwidth to discuss at length

Danny Serafini
01-19-2012, 09:33 AM
If a team plays 11 games and wins its conference championship game, then it's 17 games.

You're looking at 19 games, not 17. 12 game season + conference title game + 6 games in the tournament. They're not going to drop to 11 games in the regular season because they're not going to cut out a game's worth of revenue.

Sea Ray
01-19-2012, 09:38 AM
You're looking at 19 games, not 17. 12 game season + conference title game + 6 games in the tournament. They're not going to drop to 11 games in the regular season because they're not going to cut out a game's worth of revenue.

Such a format would render conference title games essentially meaningless; reason #85 why this plan wouldn't even make it to the drawing board

Roy Tucker
01-19-2012, 09:41 AM
A 64 team playoff is just nuts for div 1A football. It's nothing more than internet fodder. That would mean over half the teams make the field. It makes no sense on many, many levels. So much so it's not worth the time and bandwidth to discuss at length

So why did you comment? :mooner:

It probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in heck of coming true. But about 1/2 the NCAA teams go to bowl games now. Why not put them in a bracket?

And I think it makes a lot of sense and that's why it won't happen. It's too far out of the box thinking and college sports is entirely too stodgy to ever consider doing it. You'll never get college presidents and ADs and bowl execs who are in their pockets to ever agree.

But March Madness played out on the football field would be enormously great and exciting. And why not discuss it? Spring training is still weeks off.

Sea Ray
01-19-2012, 10:01 AM
So why did you comment?


Cause I'm such a loser that I have nothing better to do. Sad, I know



And I think it makes a lot of sense and that's why it won't happen. It's too far out of the box thinking and college sports is entirely too stodgy to ever consider doing it. You'll never get college presidents and ADs and bowl execs who are in their pockets to ever agree.

But March Madness played out on the football field would be enormously great and exciting. And why not discuss it? Spring training is still weeks off.

You think it makes sense to allow over half the teams into a playoff? You're not worried about watering down the regular season or eliminating conference championship games? It would render the regular season to that of the NBA

It's debatable whether we need 64 teams in the NCAA basketball pool; there are 3 times as many BB teams as div 1A football. By what standard do yu pick the same number (64) for both sports?

Why subject the 64th team to a slaughter by the #1? Let them have a chance to win their Humanitarian Bowl, get a trophy and end their season with a celebration

Not to defend NCAA execs but there are a lot of reasons to not consider this plan other than "their pockets".

MWM
01-19-2012, 10:16 AM
I think a 64 team football tournament would be incredibly uninteresting the first two rounds. There's way more parity in basketball than football with 12 man teams and only 5 players playing at a time. That's what allows for so many upsets during march, you can get a hot shooter, or one team could get really cold. You wouldn't see that in football as the physical advantage is just too much.

I'd love to see 16 teams, but I think 8 or 12 is the sweet spot. With 12 teams, you could have the top 4 with byes set to play the 4 winners of the other 8 teams.

If they ever do go to a playoff though, they would need to cut the regular season down to 10 games plus conference championship. I think playing only 1 or 2 automatic blow out games is plenty. Play 2-3 non-conference games and then conference play. Don't have playoff games in warm climates, play them at the home stadiums until the national championship game. That's the only way it will be a level playing field.

Roy Tucker
01-19-2012, 12:23 PM
OK, so maybe I got carried away. 64 teams is too much. First and second round games would be like early season sacrificial lamb games. 48 teams with the top 16 teams getting a bye is an option. Or a 32 team bracket. But those would probably have MWM's incredibly boring blowouts and probably wouldn't work. I could get behind a 16 team bracket though.

I guess my comment is the way post-season college football is evolving. I think we're going to go through teeny-tiny little steps and in general a bass-ackwards way of doing it. I'm all for blowing the whole thing up and re-designing a tournament-style post-season. The BCS cronyism and self-annointing of teams is generally recognized as not working. I'm all for letting the TCU's and Boise State's and BYU's of the world a shot at the title. Odds are it will come down to the usual SEC/Big 10/Big 12/PAC 12 heavyweights, but let the guys prove it on the field rather than in computer RAM.

MWM
01-19-2012, 12:39 PM
I'm with you Roy, I want the cronies out of it completely or we'll never gets what's truly best for the universities, the student athletes, or the fans. These guys lining their pockets and going on luxury boondoggles all while the universities are losing money and next to nothing is going to charitable causes is disgraceful and I'd love to see it eliminated altogether.

But it has about as much chance of happening as entitlements going away. The very people who make the decisions are the ones who benefit from keeping it the same.

texasdave
01-19-2012, 03:10 PM
What if the star running back or the star quarterback went down in a #1-#64 matchup? That wouldn't be too good.

Sea Ray
01-19-2012, 03:38 PM
What if the star running back or the star quarterback went down in a #1-#64 matchup? That wouldn't be too good.

Trust me, as a U of Tenn alum, my school would have no business playing in something like this and we'd have no chance against Alabama or LSU under any circumstances. We ended the yr #60 in the final RPI

Newport Red
01-22-2012, 02:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/education/edlife/how-big-time-sports-ate-college-life.html?_r=2

Chip R
02-08-2012, 09:02 AM
Now, all of a sudden, Jim Delany is in favor of a playoff.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_big_ten_jim_delany_football_playoff_bcs_020 712

Slyder
02-08-2012, 09:21 AM
Now, all of a sudden, Jim Delany is in favor of a playoff.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_big_ten_jim_delany_football_playoff_bcs_020 712

Somebody must have finally told him how much $$$ was to be made by a playoff.

Chip R
02-08-2012, 09:47 AM
Somebody must have finally told him how much $$$ was to be made by a playoff.

I think he finally figured out that the Big 10 was getting shut out of the BCS Championship game due to the SEC's domination.

And the money, of course.