PDA

View Full Version : College presidents approve new four team playoff format



jojo
06-26-2012, 06:49 PM
I'm surprised this isn't getting more discussion:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014

I'm especially surprised since the two main topics that need further discussion are doosies...


Two main topics that need further discussion are how teams will be selected and how revenue will be distributed. The commissioners have agreed in principle as to how the revenue will be divided, according to Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, but that has not been made public yet.

Redsfaithful
06-27-2012, 08:54 AM
I don't want to complain, because it's such an obvious improvement, but it's a shame the semifinal games won't be on college campuses (of the higher seeds). The environment of the games would be much better with more involved crowds, and I really don't have an attachment to the bowls, for the most part.

reds1869
06-27-2012, 09:21 AM
I really don't have an attachment to the bowls, for the most part.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Which is the same reason we are getting this joke of a playoff system and not the superior playoff system used in every other division of college football.

Sea Ray
06-27-2012, 09:35 AM
The reason it's not getting more attention is because so little has happened. Basically all they've done is implement a +1 playoff game. They're saying that instead of picking two teams, we're going to pick 4 and two winners from New Years Day will get to play one more game. I suppose it's a start but it's not exactly getting adventurous or anything. This sort of system will make it very difficult for a Boise St or even a UC to ever make it.

The unanswered questions such as revenue distribution are huge. For instance does Notre Dame get paid if they're not one of the four teams? I hope not but my guess is they'll continue to make special exceptions for the Irish. Will the Big East get as much as the SEC?

Chip R
06-27-2012, 09:39 AM
The reason it's not getting more attention is because so little has happened. Basically all they've done is implement a +1 playoff game. They're saying that instead of picking two teams, we're going to pick 4 and two winners from New Years Day will get to play one more game. I suppose it's a start but it's not exactly getting adventurous or anything. This sort of system will make it very difficult for a Boise St or even a UC to ever make it.

The unanswered questions such as revenue distribution are huge. For instance does Notre Dame get paid if they're not one of the four teams? I hope not but my guess is they'll continue to make special exceptions for the Irish. Will the Big East get as much as the SEC?

I think it's also not getting much attention because it's not football season.

cumberlandreds
06-27-2012, 10:37 AM
It's a huge step in the right direction. Most likely after the schools see how much money they can make from a playoff system the tournament will increase. It will eventually go to 8 teams then most likely to 16. It took years for the basketball tournament to expand. But when they started making money from it, it expanded by leaps and bounds. From about 24 teams in 1974 to 32 to 40 to 48 to 64 and now 68 with a recent push to get to 96. Don't worry more teams will be involved in the very near future.

IslandRed
06-27-2012, 12:15 PM
The unanswered questions such as revenue distribution are huge. For instance does Notre Dame get paid if they're not one of the four teams? I hope not but my guess is they'll continue to make special exceptions for the Irish. Will the Big East get as much as the SEC?

I don't think it's "unanswered" so much as "unannounced." As jojo's link said ("agreement in principle") they have the framework. And no, the Big East isn't going to get what the SEC gets. From everything I've read, the SEC, Big 12, B1G, Pac-12 and ACC are getting the lion's share. Not equal, necessarily, they're working on a formula to use, but it won't leave any of those conferences in a bind if they don't happen to get a team into the four-team playoff in a given year. As for the Big East, they'll probably end up better than the other non-big-five leagues but there is clearly not a big six anymore.


It's a huge step in the right direction. Most likely after the schools see how much money they can make from a playoff system the tournament will increase. (snip) ... more teams will be involved in the very near future.

They set up a 12-year contract specifically to not have to deal with calls to expand for awhile. :cool: Of course, things can change.

Another interesting question -- does this spur more conference realignment or settle things down? There was a lot of smoke earlier in the summer, but nothing was going to happen until the playoff stuff was settled. Now that people know the deal, we'll see what happens.

bucksfan2
06-27-2012, 12:16 PM
Two flaws in the current playoff format.
1) No home field advantage for the higher seed.
2) Its only 4 teams.

Being an OSU grad I think one of the unfair things about the bowl system is the northern teams are at a disadvantage due to the locations of the bowl games. When you build a team to compete in northen climate in November your at a disadvantage playing a game in 75 degree weather.

I think 8 teams is about the max I would want for a playoff but think it should go there. It gets to the point where if you aren't in the top 8 you really have no argument. If you aren't in the top 4 there could be a debate. The more teams that you add the less quality teams you are adding. It also stands to devalue the regular season, one that is pretty special if you ask me. The last think I would want to see is at an OSU UM game, Conference title game, etc. a team rest its starters like teams do in the NFL.

If it were up to me I would attempt to standardize the playing field amongst all power conferences. No oversigning and each is required to play a certain number of BCS conference teams in a certain year. I would make an 8 ream playoff with the first two games played at the higher seeds home field. Then the title game would rotate like the Super Bowl does. I would pick the 8 teams by a computer and human vote with the human vote being something similar to what the AP does. The last thing I want is the coaches voting on who makes it when its obvious that they don't care to vote at all. I could live with a NCAA Basketball type process but think in football there may not be enough to go upon to make the picks without the help of computers.

They have 2 years to get this done, I hope it expands mroe than a +1.

Redsfaithful
06-27-2012, 04:27 PM
Being an OSU grad I think one of the unfair things about the bowl system is the northern teams are at a disadvantage due to the locations of the bowl games. When you build a team to compete in northen climate in November your at a disadvantage playing a game in 75 degree weather.

I complain about this all the time. It blows my mind that Ohio State can play LSU at a "neutral site" in a title game in freaking New Orleans and the media barely mentions it. Or all the teams that get to play USC at the Rose Bowl.

improbus
06-27-2012, 04:48 PM
I've always thought that the cold weather thing is a little overrated. The Big Ten season finishes around Thanksgiving, so only a handful of game encounter terrible weather. Go to Floridas first home game and tell me that playing in that kind of heat isnt a disadvantage.

Redsfaithful
06-27-2012, 04:50 PM
Florida and Ohio in August really aren't that different.

improbus
06-27-2012, 05:06 PM
Florida and Ohio in August really aren't that different.

Except for about 7 degrees. The average temp in Gainesville in August is 91 and is 84 in Columbus. It isn't massive, but anyone who goes to Florida in August is flat out nuts.

Also, when was the last time OSU played in snow? I went through game lists back to 2008, but they stopped listing the weather. Any OSU fan remember the last game in snow? I even saw a Penn State game that was 75 degrees in mid November.

Assembly Hall
06-27-2012, 05:17 PM
I, too, think it is step towards a full blown play-off system. I am also curious as to how Notre Dame is going to approach this.

improbus
06-27-2012, 05:30 PM
I, too, think it is step towards a full blown play-off system. I am also curious as to how Notre Dame is going to approach this.

If there is a selection committee that will benefit ND, because they won't need the automatic qualifier to get in. Also, their strength of schedule is usually very good, especially with MSU improving. But ND needs to worry more about winning games than getting access.

Newport Red
06-27-2012, 06:30 PM
Being an OSU grad I think one of the unfair things about the bowl system is the northern teams are at a disadvantage due to the locations of the bowl games. When you build a team to compete in northen climate in November your at a disadvantage playing a game in 75 degree weather.

I used to think this way, but when is the last time OSU has played in the snow?

jojo
06-27-2012, 09:28 PM
The average November temp in auburn is about ten degrees warmer than Columbus ( mid-60s vs mid 50s). That's different for sure but it's not like it's sleet/snow versus aloha different.

Calling New Orleans a neutral venue for LSU is stretching credibility but the weather angle is probably exaggerated.

Sea Ray
06-27-2012, 09:40 PM
It can't go to 16 teams and still unhold the value of the regular season. I don't want to see more re-matches like we saw last yr. I like that the regular season means something in college football.

Sure New Orleans is a home field advantage for LSU but that's something we have to live with. Chances are slim that LSU would be in the champiobship game that yr. The NFL takes the same risk as they generally plan their Super Bowls at a home city for one of their 32 teams.

You really don't want snow determining a national champion. Let's not let the weather decide

IslandRed
06-27-2012, 10:04 PM
Being an OSU grad I think one of the unfair things about the bowl system is the northern teams are at a disadvantage due to the locations of the bowl games. When you build a team to compete in northen climate in November your at a disadvantage playing a game in 75 degree weather.

A couple of comments, one serious, one tongue in cheek:

1. Are northern teams really that different anymore in terms of style of play? Everyone in the country throws the ball and all the players are majoring in pre-NFL. If anything, Alabama and LSU were playing a very traditional Big Ten style last year based on power running and defense.

2. There's no rule against northern cities hosting bowl games, it's just that no one wants to go play in them. :p

gonelong
06-27-2012, 10:36 PM
Also, when was the last time OSU played in snow? I went through game lists back to 2008, but they stopped listing the weather. Any OSU fan remember the last game in snow? I even saw a Penn State game that was 75 degrees in mid November.

The OSU/Mich game in either 2010 or 2008 was pretty cold. Rain/sleet type weather. My wife could describe it in much more intricate detail. She still hasn't warmed up. :D

GL

Assembly Hall
06-28-2012, 08:00 AM
If there is a selection committee that will benefit ND, because they won't need the automatic qualifier to get in. Also, their strength of schedule is usually very good, especially with MSU improving. But ND needs to worry more about winning games than getting access.

That last sentence there is what is the most interesting. If ND continues with 8-4 type seasons they would be in danger of losing the NBC contract. If that happens then they would go looking for their piece of the pie within a conference. Of course this is all speculation on my part.

Another thing about ND is that I think they very well might be in danger of losing quite a few of those B1G schools on their schedule. I say this because of the recent scheduling agreement between the B1G and the Pac-12. If I was Michigan I wouldnt want to play ND and USC in the same season and then go through a rigorous conference schedule.

Either way, I am curious to see how ND looks at possible conference alignment.

jojo
06-28-2012, 08:33 AM
The OSU/Mich game in either 2010 or 2008 was pretty cold. Rain/sleet type weather. My wife could describe it in much more intricate detail. She still hasn't warmed up. :D

GL

The 2010 Iron Bowl (Nov 27th) was wet with temps dropping into the upper 30's by the 4th quarter.

In 2008, I just remember thunderstorms most of the day and maybe upper 50's or low 60's.

Chip R
06-28-2012, 09:04 AM
That last sentence there is what is the most interesting. If ND continues with 8-4 type seasons they would be in danger of losing the NBC contract. If that happens then they would go looking for their piece of the pie within a conference. Of course this is all speculation on my part.

I doubt that. NBC is so desperate for shows that people actually watch that a mediocre ND team is gold for them.


Another thing about ND is that I think they very well might be in danger of losing quite a few of those B1G schools on their schedule. I say this because of the recent scheduling agreement between the B1G and the Pac-12. If I was Michigan I wouldnt want to play ND and USC in the same season and then go through a rigorous conference schedule.

Either way, I am curious to see how ND looks at possible conference alignment.

That's a very good point about the scheduling. I'm not going to worry about ND until they get good enough to actually be considered for this playoff.

Assembly Hall
06-28-2012, 09:26 AM
Chip, I think the NBC contract and ND's schedule can go hand in hand. NBC will put up with a mediocre Irish team as long as they are playing top notch competition. But if Purdue, MSU, and UM disconnect and the Golden Domers fill that void with with more South Floridas and Tulsas then I see a potential problem.

I think the ND faithful are elitest. They dont think their rivalrys are in jeopardy. But I think they are. Adding two more teams to the championship picture is gonna change schools like USC and Michigan's way of thinking as well. Both play in conferences with steep competition.

bucksfan2
06-28-2012, 09:34 AM
I used to think this way, but when is the last time OSU has played in the snow?

Couldn't tell you. I know during my time at OSU I froze in the stands a number of times later on in the year. A couple of UM games come to mind. Anytime you get into October you can get games where the starting temperature is around freezing.

The weather is also a little bit different rain wise in the North as it is in the South. There have been numerous big time games where OSU has had to play a ball control offense because of the weather conditions. Two that come to mind are the 06 game against PSU as well as the Beanie Wells led OSU against Michigan back in 09 (?).

MWM
06-28-2012, 09:36 AM
I think the weather thing is overblown, but I do think there's at least something to it. I think the bigger issue is the warm weather provides unfair home field to those in the south or west. I think this is something that will eventually change as well. They didn't want to try to take on everything as nothing would have gotten passed. Once the playoff is off and running, which has been the biggest debate perhaps in sports for the better part of 20 years, they will have an opportunity to optimize it.

WMR
06-28-2012, 09:52 AM
It's about money and bowls in warm weather equals more money than bowls in cold weather. Don't see it changing anytime. Further, they will not do the home field advantage thing because then you've got 80,000 plus who will be sleeping in their own beds and not pumping money into a host city's economy. I do see the field expanding sooner rather than later.

improbus
06-28-2012, 10:45 AM
It's about money and bowls in warm weather equals more money than bowls in cold weather. Don't see it changing anytime. Further, they will not do the home field advantage thing because then you've got 80,000 plus who will be sleeping in their own beds and not pumping money into a host city's economy. I do see the field expanding sooner rather than later.

Bingo. Warm weather attracts fans. If the fans would spend the same amount of money in Chicago or State College, they would hold the games here.

bucksfan2
06-28-2012, 11:52 AM
It's about money and bowls in warm weather equals more money than bowls in cold weather. Don't see it changing anytime. Further, they will not do the home field advantage thing because then you've got 80,000 plus who will be sleeping in their own beds and not pumping money into a host city's economy. I do see the field expanding sooner rather than later.

If you have a home game in Columbus most of the hotels around campus as well as downtown are pretty full. I brought up Columbus because it is one of the larger cities with a college football power.

Clemson, SC has a population of 13905 while their football stadium holds 81500. The same could probably be said about most major programs that aren't located in a major city. It may not be a massive influx of bodies into their city but it is quite an economic boom for those home football games.

Redsfaithful
06-28-2012, 02:19 PM
The average November temp in auburn is about ten degrees warmer than Columbus ( mid-60s vs mid 50s). That's different for sure but it's not like it's sleet/snow versus aloha different.

Calling New Orleans a neutral venue for LSU is stretching credibility but the weather angle is probably exaggerated.

These semi-final games will be in January though, no?

jojo
06-28-2012, 02:49 PM
These semi-final games will be in January though, no?

But no college program makes recruitment decisions based upon playing conditions in January though. In other words, the style of play in the Big Ten is not geared toward playing in snow and below freezing temperatures.

Redsfaithful
06-28-2012, 03:17 PM
Sure, but traditionally the Big Ten has had an emphasis on running the ball and defense, things that are effective in poor weather. This is becoming less true lately I'm sure, but I'm sure that's where the idea originates.

WMR
06-28-2012, 03:41 PM
Has there been a more smash mouth team the past few years than Bama?

jojo
06-28-2012, 04:05 PM
Has there been a more smash mouth team the past few years than Bama?

That's basically Les Miles too-get guys bigger and faster than everyone else and bully punch to a championship.

improbus
06-28-2012, 04:05 PM
Sure, but traditionally the Big Ten has had an emphasis on running the ball and defense, things that are effective in poor weather. This is becoming less true lately I'm sure, but I'm sure that's where the idea originates.

I think that strategy comes as much from the local high school style of play as it does the weather. Teams used to recruit a lot more from their local stae than they do today, so they had to play the same way their local talent played. Ohio has never been quarterback hotbed.

Assembly Hall
06-28-2012, 04:20 PM
That's basically Les Miles too-get guys bigger and faster than everyone else and bully punch to a championship.

I pretty sure the coach of Bama is Nick Sabin........it doesnt really matter, both Sabin and Miles have Big Ten ties. I dont believe a lot in that weather stuff either. However, I would imagine that those "southern" schools would not like to play in snow. But as WMR said......the Bowls are based on money, actually the northern schools prefer to go to a warm climate for their schools and take a vacation and dump money into the warm weather economy.

jojo
06-28-2012, 05:45 PM
I pretty sure the coach of Bama is Nick Sabin........it doesnt really matter, both Sabin and Miles have Big Ten ties. I dont believe a lot in that weather stuff either. However, I would imagine that those "southern" schools would not like to play in snow. But as WMR said......the Bowls are based on money, actually the northern schools prefer to go to a warm climate for their schools and take a vacation and dump money into the warm weather economy.

Who does like to play in snow and what team would actually be designed for such weather?

Neither Bama nor LSU would've been phased by weather conditions last season. A traditional Auburn team wouldn't have been slowed by weather either. I guess you could argue that a speed advantage could be nullified by weather conditions but it's not like the Big Ten purposefully recruits slow.

gonelong
06-28-2012, 06:01 PM
Who does like to play in snow and what team would actually be designed for such weather?

I doubt most people prefer it, but it's part of the gig. Teams are not specifically designed with that *only* in mind, but it is a consideration for those that face those challanges.



Neither Bama nor LSU would've been phased by weather conditions last season. A traditional Auburn team wouldn't have been slowed by weather either. I guess you could argue that a speed advantage could be nullified by weather conditions but it's not like the Big Ten purposefully recruits slow.

I agree, I don't think Bama or LSU would have been all that affected. I think Auburn the year before would have been, as well as Oregon.

I don't think the weather effect is overblown as much as the games are not often played in such adverse conditions. If you start playing them in late Dec/Jan in the northern areas, then I think it would come into play eventually.

Surely there is some difference between Team A playing in 10-20* warmer weather (+humidity) than they are acclimated to instead of Team B playing in 10-20* degree colder weather than they are acclimated to.

I have to believe the possiblity of a 20-40* temperature range would play at least some small factor.

GL

RiverRat13
06-29-2012, 09:42 AM
It is less being built for the weather than the players being acclimated to it. The Packers with Brett Favre were a throwing team yet had an unbelievable record when the temperature was cold. You also had the Capital One Bowl a couple of years ago when the temps were low and Miami's sideline was huddled by the heaters while it was no big deal for Wisconsin.

But if the game is in a Northern city (which it should be on occasion), it will be Indy or Detroit where the game itself can be indoors. I can live with that. People aren't likely to spend the whole week for the Championship game in that particular city because they would have just spent the whole week at the bowl game site. People aren't going to travel that long twice. But it should be rotated. The Northern teams should not always have to travel out of their region like they do now.

Todd Gack
06-29-2012, 09:54 AM
Not to sound like a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, or a worthless steaming pile of cow dung, but I wish they'd just go back to the old pre-BCS format. Wasn't perfect, but that was the beauty of it. There was a certain romance about pouring a bloody mary at noon on New Years Day, scratching myself, and sitting on the couch for 12 hours while all the meaningful bowls played out on the same day.

Todd Gack
06-29-2012, 09:56 AM
It's a huge step in the right direction. Most likely after the schools see how much money they can make from a playoff system the tournament will increase. It will eventually go to 8 teams then most likely to 16. It took years for the basketball tournament to expand. But when they started making money from it, it expanded by leaps and bounds. From about 24 teams in 1974 to 32 to 40 to 48 to 64 and now 68 with a recent push to get to 96. Don't worry more teams will be involved in the very near future.

I cant wait for the year the two unbeaten teams ranked 1 and 2 lose in the first round of the SETTLE IT ON THE FIELD playoffs.

the nfl operates under a system where league members play common schedules and opponents so logical tie breakers to determine playoff teams can be established. In college football we have a bunch of people in a room deciding who the four best teams are. in the nfl you can point ot specific head to head, division and conference records to legitimately decide your tournament participants. What is it now in college football, who we think plays a tougher schedule or has better "wins?"

Todd Gack
06-29-2012, 10:06 AM
This system would be a clusterfark for many years. I'll start with 1998.

1998:

1 Tennessee 12-0
2 Florida State 11-1
3 Kansas State 11-1
4 Ohio State 10-1
5 UCLA 10-1
6 Texas A&M 11-2
7 Arizona 11-1
8 Florida 9-2
9 Wisconsin 10-1
10 Tulane 11-0
11 Nebraska 9-3
12 Virginia 9-2
13 Arkansas 9-2
14 Georgia Tech 9-2
15 Syracuse 8-3

1 unbeaten and 3 1-loss league champs and one 1-loss Ohio State team which didn't play Wisconsin in the regular season.

gonelong
06-29-2012, 10:45 AM
Ranking #1 or #2 means little, it's a flawed ranking to begin with.

This is why I favor only conference champions being eligible for the playoffs. Your conference determines how it will be represented. If you don't like the team your conference is sending, then fix your own process, it's nobodies fault but your own.

It is also why I am adamantly opposed to sending two teams from any conference before all (major) conferences are represented. The teams don't play head to head so evaluation of conferences is difficult at best.

I'd also like to see the playing field leveled a bit in regards to oversigning. Railroading a kid out of your program because he didn't pan out like you expected is horsecrap. Maybe the teams need a 2 per year exception in which they can remove a kid from the team for non-performance, but they get to stay on scholarship if they keep their academics in order.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2503981&postcount=16 (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2503981&postcount=16)


I'm for a playoff where the BCS conferences each send a representative, and the last 2 two teams are the highest ranked BCS teams that are not automatically sent. This allows a second school from a top conference to get in and also gives the TCU/Boise State/Houston a shot at getting in.

First round is a home game at the top 4 BCS ranked schools that are auto qualifyers. This means some games could be played in snow or very, very cold weather. (Yes!)

The semi-final is a rotation of the 2 of the 4 big bowl games, and the final is rotated amon the Big4 bowl games..

The odd-man-out of big bowl games gets their pick of the at large teams that year.

This makes the whole season a playoff. Win your conference championship and you go, otherwise it's off to a bowl game. If you can't win your conference, you don't get to go (unless you make one of the 2 at large bids). Each conference gets a shot at the big trophy and the little guys get a fighting shot at it as well.

If you are not of the top 8, you go play the bowls as we always have. People will still travel, people will still watch.

It's not a big burden on the kids, they would have played a bowl game anyways, only 4 school will play more than 1 post-season game.

The first 4 games would sell out no problem. I suspect it wouldn't be an issue to sell out the last 3 games (2 semi-final) either.

Not perfect, but does address some of the "deal breakers". The big losers might be the 4 big bowls, so this probably never happens.



GL

gonelong
06-29-2012, 10:55 AM
1998 - If I had my way.

Round 1:
Syracuse @ Tenn
Wisc @ FSU
Tex A&M @ Kan St
UCLA @ OSU

1 Tennessee 12-0 (SEC Conf Champ)
2 Florida State 11-1 (ACC Conf co-Champ)
3 Kansas State 11-1
4 Ohio State 10-1
5 UCLA 10-1 (Pac10 Conf Champ)
6 Texas A&M 11-2 (Big12 Conf Champ)
9 Wisconsin 10-1 (Big 10 Cof Champ)
15 Syracuse 8-3 (Big East Conf Champ)

Tulane is the only team with *any* kind of argument.

GL

improbus
06-29-2012, 12:36 PM
It is less being built for the weather than the players being acclimated to it. The Packers with Brett Favre were a throwing team yet had an unbelievable record when the temperature was cold. You also had the Capital One Bowl a couple of years ago when the temps were low and Miami's sideline was huddled by the heaters while it was no big deal for Wisconsin.

But if the game is in a Northern city (which it should be on occasion), it will be Indy or Detroit where the game itself can be indoors. I can live with that. People aren't likely to spend the whole week for the Championship game in that particular city because they would have just spent the whole week at the bowl game site. People aren't going to travel that long twice. But it should be rotated. The Northern teams should not always have to travel out of their region like they do now.
I am just ow reading a book called Scorecasting, which is a sort of a Freakonomics for sports. In the book, they attempted to figure out the reason that home teams win more by looking at the conventional wisdom.
1) Fans
2) Travel
3) Stadium/Arena itself (including weather)
4) Referees

They found that the stadium/arena/weather play almost no part in determining who wins. For example, Dome teams win on the road in cold weather environments just as much as other cold weather teams do. (Remember the Falcons at Lambeau).

BTW, in the end they found that referees make up almost all home field advantage. The book is a little dense, but worth reading. It certainly makes a lot of the basic sports truisms seem silly.

gonelong
06-29-2012, 01:21 PM
I am just ow reading a book called Scorecasting, which is a sort of a Freakonomics for sports. In the book, they attempted to figure out the reason that home teams win more by looking at the conventional wisdom.
1) Fans
2) Travel
3) Stadium/Arena itself (including weather)
4) Referees

They found that the stadium/arena/weather play almost no part in determining who wins. For example, Dome teams win on the road in cold weather environments just as much as other cold weather teams do. (Remember the Falcons at Lambeau).

BTW, in the end they found that referees make up almost all home field advantage. The book is a little dense, but worth reading. It certainly makes a lot of the basic sports truisms seem silly.

Interesting book, but I thought they were quite loose in some areas and didn't ask the right questions in others. It's been awhile since I read it so I can't cite specifics. I do remember them basically saying there is no Fan influence which is idiotic, especially in the NFL. We've all seen a team backed up into their endzone with the QB trying to audible and then needing to call a time out. As close as NFL games are, having one less timeout is often a differentiator in a game.

GL

bucksfan2
06-29-2012, 01:55 PM
It is less being built for the weather than the players being acclimated to it. The Packers with Brett Favre were a throwing team yet had an unbelievable record when the temperature was cold. You also had the Capital One Bowl a couple of years ago when the temps were low and Miami's sideline was huddled by the heaters while it was no big deal for Wisconsin.

But if the game is in a Northern city (which it should be on occasion), it will be Indy or Detroit where the game itself can be indoors. I can live with that. People aren't likely to spend the whole week for the Championship game in that particular city because they would have just spent the whole week at the bowl game site. People aren't going to travel that long twice. But it should be rotated. The Northern teams should not always have to travel out of their region like they do now.

There was a time when Tampa Bay was building into a Super Bowl contender but had yet to win a game in a northern city with a certain low temperature. I don't buy it one bit that temperature and weather doesn't matter. As a fan of a northern team I think the type of football is somewhat molded around what the weather conditions could be. I also think that playing a game in a temperature that you are used to could be a big advantage. IMO its much easier going from cold to warm than it is from warm to cold. The humidity is less of an issue because by the time the games mean something the humidity has leveled out.

jojo
06-29-2012, 03:02 PM
I guess, I'd frame the weather issue this way. It probably hasn't been the reason a team has or has not won a championship.

Frankly, if it takes a snow storm for a program to win a championship, I'm not sure that's an argument for playing in an outside northern venue during January.

bucksfan2
06-29-2012, 03:24 PM
I guess, I'd frame the weather issue this way. It probably hasn't been the reason a team has or has not won a championship.

Frankly, if it takes a snow storm for a program to win a championship, I'm not sure that's an argument for playing in an outside northern venue during January.

You think weather and venue had little to do with LSU beating OSU in New Orleans for the BCS title game? Playing indoors in your back yard is hardly a neutral site. You don't think that game takes a little different tone if its played out doors in Cleveland or Cincinnati?

gonelong
06-29-2012, 03:24 PM
I guess, I'd frame the weather issue this way. It probably hasn't been the reason a team has or has not won a championship.

I'd say it's kinda hard to tell what kind of factor it would be since it doesn't happen in college football. Over the years we have certainly seen weather be a factor it in the NFL in December.



Frankly, if it takes a snow storm for a program to win a championship, I'm not sure that's an argument for playing in an outside northern venue during January.

Frankly, if it takes psudo home game and a favorable climate for a program to win a championship ...

What's the matter Colonel Sanders? Chicken? :D

GL

WMR
06-29-2012, 03:50 PM
Do any Big 10 fans in this thread wish their conference had refused to ratify the current arrangement? Seems to be quite a bit of unhappiness.

As someone said, it's easier to go from cold to warm than warm to cold. In the interests of giving the actual best team the best chance to emerge victorious, that seems to validate the current sites.

If there are any northern games--which is doubtful, IMO--I think you'll almost definitely see those games played in domes. Putting a fast SEC team in a dome is only going to make them faster.

BuckeyeRed27
06-29-2012, 03:56 PM
Do any Big 10 fans in this thread wish their conference had refused to ratify the current arrangement? Seems to be quite a bit of unhappiness.

As someone said, it's easier to go from cold to warm than warm to cold. In the interests of giving the actual best team the best chance to emerge victorious, that seems to validate the current sites.

If there are any northern games--which is doubtful, IMO--I think you'll almost definitely see those games played in domes. Putting a fast SEC team in a dome is only going to make them faster.

I'm happy it passed and it seems like a good enough system.

I do wish that the semi's were going to be played in home stadiums, but not for some weather advantage. I just think that one of the aspects that makes college football unique is the environment and the better team should get that advantage.

jojo
06-29-2012, 03:59 PM
You think weather and venue had little to do with LSU beating OSU in New Orleans for the BCS title game? Playing indoors in your back yard is hardly a neutral site. You don't think that game takes a little different tone if its played out doors in Cleveland or Cincinnati?

I've already indicated calling New Orleans a neutral venue for LSU is a stretch at best.

I think the better team won on 1/7/2008. Playing in 60 degree weather like Cincy experienced that day (59 was the low; it hit 65 in Cleveland) would not have changed the outcome.

But if you're asking would playing in snow increase the chances of a weaker team beating a stronger team, well, ya, it might. Can you really make a compelling argument that the National Championship game should be played in crappy weather though?

bucksfan2
06-29-2012, 04:18 PM
I've already indicated calling New Orleans a neutral venue for LSU is a stretch at best.

I think the better team won on 1/7/2008. Playing in 60 degree weather like Cincy experienced that day (59 was the low; it hit 65 in Cleveland) would not have changed the outcome.

But if you're asking would playing in snow increase the chances of a weaker team beating a stronger team, well, ya, it might. Can you really make a compelling argument that the National Championship game should be played in crappy weather though?

Does playing in perfect conditions really determine the best team? I think when you are building a program you have to consider the environment you are playing in. Sure it can be 60 degrees in Ohio in January but it also can be 0. If your playing your last 4 games in cold weather it changes up the style you play. You have to make considerations for that, you may not throw the ball as much.

I just don't get the idea that taking an Alabama, LSU, Florida and having them play and outdoor game in the north won't effect them. The furthest north the SEC teams play a demanding game is Knoxville. IMO it makes a difference and its not just the snow or rain, just the cold weather. I have family from Florida and its quite funny to watch how they react to cold weather at Christmas.

jojo
06-29-2012, 05:42 PM
Does playing in perfect conditions really determine the best team? I think when you are building a program you have to consider the environment you are playing in. Sure it can be 60 degrees in Ohio in January but it also can be 0. If your playing your last 4 games in cold weather it changes up the style you play. You have to make considerations for that, you may not throw the ball as much.

I just don't get the idea that taking an Alabama, LSU, Florida and having them play and outdoor game in the north won't effect them. The furthest north the SEC teams play a demanding game is Knoxville. IMO it makes a difference and its not just the snow or rain, just the cold weather. I have family from Florida and its quite funny to watch how they react to cold weather at Christmas.

Lets assume taking a team and placing it in a certain weather condition could dramatically impact it's skill and thus dramatically impact the outcome. What is the point of determining a championship that way? I don't get wanting to play a championship in snow. It's taking a perceived slight disadvantage associated with having to play a bowl game in good weather (Big Ten teams simply don't play that many games in "January" conditions) and over correcting to an extreme.

Redsfaithful
06-29-2012, 05:53 PM
The weather thing, for me, is a tangent. I just want semi-final home games because that'd be awesome, whether it's in Columbus or Gainesville or wherever.

Assembly Hall
06-29-2012, 06:20 PM
Do any Big 10 fans in this thread wish their conference had refused to ratify the current arrangement? Seems to be quite a bit of unhappiness.

As someone said, it's easier to go from cold to warm than warm to cold. In the interests of giving the actual best team the best chance to emerge victorious, that seems to validate the current sites.

If there are any northern games--which is doubtful, IMO--I think you'll almost definitely see those games played in domes. Putting a fast SEC team in a dome is only going to make them faster.

What's done is done. I have no problem with it. An SEC team will be faster, but how will they handle the noise from a partisan B1G crowd? Play that game in Indy or Detroit and I think the B1G will win 75% of the time over a more talented SEC school. Just my opinion.

Sea Ray
06-29-2012, 07:27 PM
They found that the stadium/arena/weather play almost no part in determining who wins. For example, Dome teams win on the road in cold weather environments just as much as other cold weather teams do. (Remember the Falcons at Lambeau).

BTW, in the end they found that referees make up almost all home field advantage. The book is a little dense, but worth reading. It certainly makes a lot of the basic sports truisms seem silly.
Sometimes one must watch games instead of writing books. The weather sure played a role in the Bengals beating Dan Fouts and going to the Super Bowl in the early 80s

Assembly Hall
06-29-2012, 07:41 PM
Sometimes one must watch games instead of writing books. The weather sure played a role in the Bengals beating Dan Fouts and going to the Super Bowl in the early 80s

LOL.....yes sir, it did!!!!!!

improbus
06-29-2012, 10:49 PM
Sometimes one must watch games instead of writing books. The weather sure played a role in the Bengals beating Dan Fouts and going to the Super Bowl in the early 80s
I don't think they would contend that weather NEVER affects the outcome of a game. That was one of the five worst weather games in NFL history. But, it doesn't have the overall effect that we think. Someone earlier mentioned the Bucs never winning in conference in cold weather games. That might be because they really stunk for most of their history. Why didn't the Dolphins have the same streak, or the Cowboys?

I'm a little young for that game (I was 2 when it happened), but I read a little on the game. It sounds like the Bengals won because Ken Anderson had big hands and Dan Fouts had small hands. And, while those attributes were certainly affected by the weather, that seems much more random than some plan. I don't think the Bengals drafted Anderson out of that tiny school because he had big hands and they knew ahead of time that those would be necessary in case the wind chill gets to be around -35. Not to take anything away from the Bengals, but that feels a little fluky if that is the cause and it doesn't feel like something the Bengals engineered on their own.

improbus
06-29-2012, 11:56 PM
I don't think they would contend that weather NEVER affects the outcome of a game. That was one of the five worst weather games in NFL history. But, it doesn't have the overall effect that we think. Someone earlier mentioned the Bucs never winning in conference in cold weather games. That might be because they really stunk for most of their history. Why didn't the Dolphins have the same streak, or the Cowboys?

I'm a little young for that game (I was 2 when it happened), but I read a little on the game. It sounds like the Bengals won because Ken Anderson had big hands and Dan Fouts had small hands. And, while those attributes were certainly affected by the weather, that seems much more random than some plan. I don't think the Bengals drafted Anderson out of that tiny school because he had big hands and they knew ahead of time that those would be necessary in case the wind chill gets to be around -35. Not to take anything away from the Bengals, but that feels a little fluky if that is the cause and it doesn't feel like something the Bengals engineered on their own.
Somehow, I ended up talking about the size of Dan Fouts hands. Sorry everyone....:confused:

Now, to get back on target, I think I like the plan. I wish the NCAA actually had its hand in it more than they do, but thems the breaks. The bowl games are beyond corrupt and it would be nice to sever as many ties with the bowls as possible. I love the idea of home field playoff games, but as long as the leeches that are the bowls are allowed to continue to be a part of the discussion, that will never happen.

Sea Ray
06-30-2012, 08:21 AM
I don't think they would contend that weather NEVER affects the outcome of a game. That was one of the five worst weather games in NFL history. But, it doesn't have the overall effect that we think. Someone earlier mentioned the Bucs never winning in conference in cold weather games. That might be because they really stunk for most of their history. Why didn't the Dolphins have the same streak, or the Cowboys?

I'm a little young for that game (I was 2 when it happened), but I read a little on the game. It sounds like the Bengals won because Ken Anderson had big hands and Dan Fouts had small hands. And, while those attributes were certainly affected by the weather, that seems much more random than some plan. I don't think the Bengals drafted Anderson out of that tiny school because he had big hands and they knew ahead of time that those would be necessary in case the wind chill gets to be around -35. Not to take anything away from the Bengals, but that feels a little fluky if that is the cause and it doesn't feel like something the Bengals engineered on their own.

The size of the QB's hands had much less to do with the outcome of that game than the weather. You really had to watch it. The Bengals linemen came out in short sleeves ready to do battle while the Chargers were shivering. Ken Anderson was one of the very good bad weather QBs and it had little to do with the size of his hands.

It's not something the Bengals engineered and that's the point. It was something the weather engineered.

As for the Bucs, if weather wasn't a concern then why was their record different in northern cities? If I'm a Bengal fan I want the Bucs in Cincinnati in December as opposed to playing in TB in Sept

bucksfan2
06-30-2012, 07:22 PM
Lets assume taking a team and placing it in a certain weather condition could dramatically impact it's skill and thus dramatically impact the outcome. What is the point of determining a championship that way? I don't get wanting to play a championship in snow. It's taking a perceived slight disadvantage associated with having to play a bowl game in good weather (Big Ten teams simply don't play that many games in "January" conditions) and over correcting to an extreme.

You do realize that playing in a northern climate in December isnt all about the snow right? Variable conditions and a 20 degree temp difference at kickoff makes a difference. Skill has nothing to do about it, it's more about familiarity with the conditions.

You match up OSU and Florida in Columbus where the game time temp is 28 and the wind is blowing around 20 mph and you can't tell me it doesn't give OSU an advantage. As it was last year the played in Orlando with a mild game time temp,advantage Florida.

jojo
06-30-2012, 07:58 PM
As it was last year the played in Orlando with a mild game time temp,advantage Florida.

Why is that "advantage Florida"?

improbus
06-30-2012, 08:12 PM
You do realize that playing in a northern climate in December isnt all about the snow right? Variable conditions and a 20 degree temp difference at kickoff makes a difference. Skill has nothing to do about it, it's more about familiarity with the conditions.

You match up OSU and Florida in Columbus where the game time temp is 28 and the wind is blowing around 20 mph and you can't tell me it doesn't give OSU an advantage. As it was last year the played in Orlando with a mild game time temp,advantage Florida.

The advantage is that there are 100,000 OSU partisans affecting the refs decisions. Do you think that weather would hurt a Tim Tebow offense? That offense would most definitely work in Ohio.

improbus
06-30-2012, 08:20 PM
The size of the QB's hands had much less to do with the outcome of that game than the weather. You really had to watch it. The Bengals linemen came out in short sleeves ready to do battle while the Chargers were shivering. Ken Anderson was one of the very good bad weather QBs and it had little to do with the size of his hands.

It's not something the Bengals engineered and that's the point. It was something the weather engineered.

As for the Bucs, if weather wasn't a concern then why was their record different in northern cities? If I'm a Bengal fan I want the Bucs in Cincinnati in December as opposed to playing in TB in Sept

The Bengals beat the Chargers earlier that year by roughly the same margin, with the same turnover margin, and with a very similar statistical feel. In a way, the weather hurt both teams performance the same. Also, they did it on the road.

Assembly Hall
07-01-2012, 07:53 AM
Personally, I think it is easier for a northern team to go south then it is a southern team to go north come November thru January. But I say that because of practicing and preparation for the game. The northern teams can easily simulate a 75 degree climate with indoor practice facilities once the weather turns cold. But the southern teams cant simulate 35 degrees.

Another thing to keep in mind when comparing the NFL to college is that the odds say that NFL teams have plenty of guys on the squad that are used to playing in inclimate weather. Whether it be from their college days or just their time in the league and how the schedule worked out. Back in the 70's Miami was a powerhouse, their division consisted of Buffalo, New England, NYJets, and Baltimore......all cities that received winter weather.

All that being said........a lot of guys playing for Florida, LSU, Bama, USC havent even seen snow, let alone play in it.

jojo
07-01-2012, 09:22 AM
Personally, I think it is easier for a northern team to go south then it is a southern team to go north come November thru January. But I say that because of practicing and preparation for the game. The northern teams can easily simulate a 75 degree climate with indoor practice facilities once the weather turns cold. But the southern teams cant simulate 35 degrees.

Another thing to keep in mind when comparing the NFL to college is that the odds say that NFL teams have plenty of guys on the squad that are used to playing in inclimate weather. Whether it be from their college days or just their time in the league and how the schedule worked out. Back in the 70's Miami was a powerhouse, their division consisted of Buffalo, New England, NYJets, and Baltimore......all cities that received winter weather.

All that being said........a lot of guys playing for Florida, LSU, Bama, USC havent even seen snow, let alone play in it.

Talking about snow is confusing the issue by framing the discussion with extremes. The average November temp in Columbus is 50 degrees (it's 67 in Alabama).

Playing a bowl game in twenty degree, snowy weather because of a perceived advantage for warm weather teams during bowl season is a tough sell. First because, playing a Bowl game in nice weather doesn't confer an advantage, it makes the weather completely neutral and more importantly, neutralizes home field advantage. Second, and this isn't unimportant, no one wants to watch a national championship be decided in crappy, fifteen degree weather on a January evening in Ann Arbor.

Assembly Hall
07-01-2012, 10:23 AM
Talking about snow is confusing the issue by framing the discussion with extremes. The average November temp in Columbus is 50 degrees (it's 67 in Alabama).

Playing a bowl game in twenty degree, snowy weather because of a perceived advantage for warm weather teams during bowl season is a tough sell. First because, playing a Bowl game in nice weather doesn't confer an advantage, it makes the weather completely neutral and more importantly, neutralizes home field advantage. Second, and this isn't unimportant, no one wants to watch a national championship be decided in crappy, fifteen degree weather on a January evening in Ann Arbor.

Well, the semi games would be in January. Snow would definitely figure into the equation if they gave teams an home-field advantage. Michigan and Ohio St would be prime examples. What is the average temperature in Ann Arbor or Columbus in January?

I cant argue one bit with your second paragraph. That is why, historically, most of the bowl games are in nice weather cities. Hell, a heckuva alot of "Northerners" head south for the winter period. In my neck of the woods we call them "Snow Birds"!!!!!!!!!

gonelong
07-01-2012, 12:19 PM
Talking about snow is confusing the issue by framing the discussion with extremes. The average November temp in Columbus is 50 degrees (it's 67 in Alabama).

The games (if I had my way) would be in Dec/Jan, not November. The average temperature is not what would interest me.



Playing a bowl game in twenty degree, snowy weather because of a perceived advantage for warm weather teams during bowl season is a tough sell.

In my scenario 8 teams would make the playoffs, and the first round would be hosted at the top 4 seeded teams home field. These games would easily sell out. The semifinal and final would be played at traditional bowl sites.


First because, playing a Bowl game in nice weather doesn't confer an advantage, it makes the weather completely neutral and more importantly, neutralizes home field advantage.

"Nice" weather is arbitrary. Certainly games played in higher heat and humidity than one team is acclimated to is not neutral.


Second, and this isn't unimportant, no one wants to watch a national championship be decided in crappy, fifteen degree weather on a January evening in Ann Arbor.

I'd love it. Part of the being a top tier athlete is overcoming adversity and performing no matter the conditions.

46000+ fans attended the Freezer bowl (Bengals vs. Chargers in '82) at -37* wind chill.

GL

Sea Ray
07-01-2012, 11:21 PM
The Bengals beat the Chargers earlier that year by roughly the same margin, with the same turnover margin, and with a very similar statistical feel. In a way, the weather hurt both teams performance the same. Also, they did it on the road.

I'd forgotten that. Good point :thumbup:

bucksfan2
07-02-2012, 10:16 AM
The advantage is that there are 100,000 OSU partisans affecting the refs decisions. Do you think that weather would hurt a Tim Tebow offense? That offense would most definitely work in Ohio.

I was more talking about last season's bowl game.

reds1869
07-03-2012, 05:51 PM
Speaking as an alum of a school that once went undefeated, had a Heisman finalist QB, finished in the Top Ten and only got the chance to beat the snot out of #25 BYU in the Motor City Bowl as our "reward", I choose to laugh at any claim of anyone else having any kind of unfair advantage against OSU. Or any other BCS school. Just sayin'.