KillaRed54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 247
- Likes
- 1,086
-
Enter your score prediction for this week's contest vs Georgia. pick the score contest. Don't forget to get in your picks for our last minute season contest: season pick contest
Anyone sickened by Rose Bowl hype??
- Thread starter ivtec_jrod
- Start date
BloodRUNZOrange
KrazzyKiffinKilla
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,701
- Likes
- 0
Bassmanbruno
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 21,003
- Likes
- 1
TENNESSEESLIM
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2008
- Messages
- 787
- Likes
- 1,180
VOLS85
Pantone151 has the herp
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 958
- Likes
- 0
BigPapaVol
Wave yo hands in the aiya
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 63,223
- Likes
- 15
alaVOL
ORANGE U THANKFUL
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,210
- Likes
- 3,803
The Bowl Championship Series has been in place since the 1998 season. This seasons championship game will be held on Jan. 8, 2009 in Miami.
Before we get to the playoff, lets start by giving the Bowl Championship Series some credit. It might not be a good system, but it is better than the old one.
For decades, college football determined its champion by having two or three of its highest-rated teams play on New Years Day, only rarely against each other.
Fans at home would turn the channel (manually) and wonder why they couldnt just have that great team play this great team rather than blow out two inferior opponents. (Too complicated was the answer.)
At the end of the day, a bunch of sportswriters, who probably watched only the game they covered in person, held a vote and named the national champion.
That was the system. Seriously, that was the system. If you set out to design the worst possible and least satisfying way for a sport to stage a championship, this might be it. Only through the clouds of nostalgia (and New Years hangovers past) does it seem even remotely palatable. Any college football is fun to watch, so you took what you got.
At least the BCS uses a convoluted formula to choose the two best teams and makes them play each other. For that we are grateful. The result has been a surge in interest in the sport. Which the apologists for the BCS like to claim proves their genius.
It doesnt.
The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. Thats not a compliment to near beer. Its like saying the BCS has a nice personality.
A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You dont even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one. (You do have to acknowledge the similar addictive elements of alcohol and college football though.)
So forget these clowns patting each other on the back for creating a system better than the worst system ever.
Were demanding real beer here and like grown-ups will lay out the best postseason system while discrediting the foolish obstructionist counter-arguments. Dont credit me with the following genius its essentially the exact same playoff system the NCAA uses for all other divisions of football.
(Please note, while I would prefer a mens basketball style committee to set the field and follow some set guidelines that would prevent things such as in league matchups in the first round, for the sake of this argument I used the final BCS standings to place and seed the field).
A 16-team field
Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA mens basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.
Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Big South champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.
First is to do what the apologists claim a playoff would ruin maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.
The chance for an easier first-round opponent in this case No. 1 seed Oklahoma would play No. 16 Buffalo is just that. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a near breeze into the second round, a de facto bye.
Drop to a four seed in this years scenario and you are dealing with a pretty tough Virginia Tech squad.
On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Tulsa could beat Oklahoma? Of course not, but as the mens basketball tournament has proven, the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.
Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasnt supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There wouldve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.
Why wouldnt college football want that?
The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasnt any good in 1977 or 2) wasnt geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, thats the system.
For even lower-rated conferences the Sun Belts, C-USA allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.
By extending the postseason to more conferences and teams, it would actually increase interest. It would not simply make the regular season matter more it would make more regular seasons matter.
With the old system, things such as the MAC championship game, which featured Buffalo upsetting Ball State was virtually meaningless. It wouldnt have been if a berth to the playoff (and in BSUs case what wouldve been a pretty good seed) was riding on it.
Whos against more meaningful games?
With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care who won the ACC title game?
And while everyone was fired up about the high stakes in the Florida-Alabama SEC championship, most conference title games pit one great team against a lesser one just playing spoiler (i.e. Missouri-Oklahoma). But what if Missouri had something to really play for? And Oklahoma was still desperate to maintain that high seed?
Before we get to the playoff, lets start by giving the Bowl Championship Series some credit. It might not be a good system, but it is better than the old one.
For decades, college football determined its champion by having two or three of its highest-rated teams play on New Years Day, only rarely against each other.
Fans at home would turn the channel (manually) and wonder why they couldnt just have that great team play this great team rather than blow out two inferior opponents. (Too complicated was the answer.)
At the end of the day, a bunch of sportswriters, who probably watched only the game they covered in person, held a vote and named the national champion.
That was the system. Seriously, that was the system. If you set out to design the worst possible and least satisfying way for a sport to stage a championship, this might be it. Only through the clouds of nostalgia (and New Years hangovers past) does it seem even remotely palatable. Any college football is fun to watch, so you took what you got.
At least the BCS uses a convoluted formula to choose the two best teams and makes them play each other. For that we are grateful. The result has been a surge in interest in the sport. Which the apologists for the BCS like to claim proves their genius.
It doesnt.
The old system was like non-alcoholic beer. The BCS is like near beer that low-alcohol stuff that gets sold in some locales. Given no other choice people prefer near beer over the non-alcohol stuff. Thats not a compliment to near beer. Its like saying the BCS has a nice personality.
A playoff is the real thing, real beer in all its varieties. If you think college football is popular now, imagine if it did away with the nonsense. You dont even have to drink beer to know real beer outsells the other two about a million to one. (You do have to acknowledge the similar addictive elements of alcohol and college football though.)
So forget these clowns patting each other on the back for creating a system better than the worst system ever.
Were demanding real beer here and like grown-ups will lay out the best postseason system while discrediting the foolish obstructionist counter-arguments. Dont credit me with the following genius its essentially the exact same playoff system the NCAA uses for all other divisions of football.
(Please note, while I would prefer a mens basketball style committee to set the field and follow some set guidelines that would prevent things such as in league matchups in the first round, for the sake of this argument I used the final BCS standings to place and seed the field).
A 16-team field
Just like in what used to be Division I-AA, the tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA mens basketball tournament, champions of all the conferences (all 11 of them) earn an automatic bid to the field.
Yes, all 11. Even the lousy conferences. While no one would argue that the Big South champ is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.
First is to do what the apologists claim a playoff would ruin maintain the integrity and relevancy of the regular season. While the idea that the season is a four-month playoff is both inaccurate and absurd, there should be a significant reward for an exceptional season.
The chance for an easier first-round opponent in this case No. 1 seed Oklahoma would play No. 16 Buffalo is just that. Earning a top two or three seed most years would present a school a near breeze into the second round, a de facto bye.
Drop to a four seed in this years scenario and you are dealing with a pretty tough Virginia Tech squad.
On the flip side, it brings true Cinderella into the college football mix for the first time. Is it likely that Tulsa could beat Oklahoma? Of course not, but as the mens basketball tournament has proven, the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.
Perhaps the most memorable college football game of the last few years was Boise State-Oklahoma, in part because Boise was the unbeaten underdog that wasnt supposed to win. When it did, in dramatic fashion, it became the talk of the country. There wouldve been historic interest in seeing if the Broncos could do it again the following week.
Why wouldnt college football want that?
The BCS said Boise State had no shot at a national title in 2007 because either 1) it wasnt any good in 1977 or 2) wasnt geographically or politically situated to be in the proper conference. As illogical as this is, thats the system.
For even lower-rated conferences the Sun Belts, C-USA allowing annual access to the tournament would not only set off celebrations on small campuses but it would encourage investment in the sport at all levels. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in those leagues to really care. This would improve quality throughout the country.
By extending the postseason to more conferences and teams, it would actually increase interest. It would not simply make the regular season matter more it would make more regular seasons matter.
With the old system, things such as the MAC championship game, which featured Buffalo upsetting Ball State was virtually meaningless. It wouldnt have been if a berth to the playoff (and in BSUs case what wouldve been a pretty good seed) was riding on it.
Whos against more meaningful games?
With the bigger conferences, a championship would take on greater value. Does anyone without direct rooting interest really care who won the ACC title game?
And while everyone was fired up about the high stakes in the Florida-Alabama SEC championship, most conference title games pit one great team against a lesser one just playing spoiler (i.e. Missouri-Oklahoma). But what if Missouri had something to really play for? And Oklahoma was still desperate to maintain that high seed?
alaVOL
ORANGE U THANKFUL
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,210
- Likes
- 3,803
At-large bids
In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee which could agree on what criteria it values. This is where independents, such as Notre Dame, would have access to the tournament. Most years, all five bids would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).
This year, the at-large process would allow for a shift in power out west. Texas Christian of the Mountain West would join league champion Utah in the playoff. Considering the league went 6-1 against local rival the Pac-10, its well earned. No longer would perception and politics trump reality.
While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the bizarre 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but it got left out anyway.
The apologist argument that the complaints and controversies would never cease is silly. Its pretty easy to tune out a three-loss Oklahoma State team. One-loss Texas? Not so much.
Ignore outdated bowls
BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College footballs continued willingness to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits, is akin to the Knicks offering Stephon Marbury a contract extension right now.
What other business outsources its most profitable and easily sold product in this case postseason football?
The bowls were needed back in the 1950s. These days they are nothing but leeches on the system. Outside of (again) nostalgia there is no value in these games. The NCAA could stage the games itself, cut out the middle men, and pocket tens of millions of extra revenue.
It has no place in a real solution. Youre allowing business outside college football to determine how college football does its business.
The bowl lobby is a powerful one though. ESPN itself owns six smaller games and isnt going to rip the system. Most of the media blindly or still drunk from bowl game media parties follow the idea that a playoff must include the bowls.
Just about every idea youll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.
The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.
The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.
That isnt to say eliminate them. The 34 bowl games can continue to operate outside of the playoff, just like any non-affiliated business. All the non-playoff teams can compete in them. With the BCS, only one game matters anyway. Its not like the Sun Bowl is going to be all that different. If the people of El Paso want to continue staging the game, then they should.
First- and second-round losers in a playoff could even take a slot in a late December bowl game. As long as the bowls dont mess with the playoff, who cares what they do? The more football the better.
At worst some of the true bottom-feeder bowls (the ones owned by ESPN) will have to fold for lack of eligible teams. The death of the PapaJohns.com Bowl is a price I think everyone is willing to pay. Maybe even Papa John himself.
Home games for higher seeds early
The playoff would stage the first three rounds at the home field of the higher-seeded team before shifting to a neutral site, a la the Super Bowl. As a nod to history, it could be a rotation of famed stadiums such as the Rose Bowl, et al.
This allows the playoff to capitalize on perhaps college footballs greatest asset the pageantry, excitement and history of on-campus stadiums. There is nothing like a game day and it doesnt matter whether youre in Tuscaloosa or Ann Arbor or Norman or Los Angeles. Each one is uniquely thrilling and adds tremendous value to the product.
So why does college football stage its postseason in antiseptic pro stadiums?
Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.
It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.
This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.
Weve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fanâs heart.
The schedule
While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, footballs top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.
Different schools have different academic schedules two guys sent me a chart last year that showed there was no weekend when someone wasnt having exams. However, college athletics has never allowed academics to stand in its way before. In this day of 12-team super leagues and midweek television games, this isnt an excuse.
Something can be worked out.
In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee which could agree on what criteria it values. This is where independents, such as Notre Dame, would have access to the tournament. Most years, all five bids would come from the power conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC).
This year, the at-large process would allow for a shift in power out west. Texas Christian of the Mountain West would join league champion Utah in the playoff. Considering the league went 6-1 against local rival the Pac-10, its well earned. No longer would perception and politics trump reality.
While the selection process would still draw complaints from the teams left out, those schools often would have two or three losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn in the 2004 season not getting a chance at the title or the bizarre 2003 season where nearly everyone thought USC was the best team but it got left out anyway.
The apologist argument that the complaints and controversies would never cease is silly. Its pretty easy to tune out a three-loss Oklahoma State team. One-loss Texas? Not so much.
Ignore outdated bowls
BCS bowl games are the single worst deal in American sports. College footballs continued willingness to be fleeced by outside businessmen, who gleefully cut themselves in on millions in profits, is akin to the Knicks offering Stephon Marbury a contract extension right now.
What other business outsources its most profitable and easily sold product in this case postseason football?
The bowls were needed back in the 1950s. These days they are nothing but leeches on the system. Outside of (again) nostalgia there is no value in these games. The NCAA could stage the games itself, cut out the middle men, and pocket tens of millions of extra revenue.
It has no place in a real solution. Youre allowing business outside college football to determine how college football does its business.
The bowl lobby is a powerful one though. ESPN itself owns six smaller games and isnt going to rip the system. Most of the media blindly or still drunk from bowl game media parties follow the idea that a playoff must include the bowls.
Just about every idea youll hear or read will use these bowls for the quarterfinals and these for the semifinals and all of it is ridiculous.
The travel demands alone on teams and fans for three or four weeks of neutral sites make it implausible. Going neutral site makes seeds meaningless. This is exactly what the apologists want the debate to be about, a non starter of a solution.
The solution, however, is to ignore the bowls.
That isnt to say eliminate them. The 34 bowl games can continue to operate outside of the playoff, just like any non-affiliated business. All the non-playoff teams can compete in them. With the BCS, only one game matters anyway. Its not like the Sun Bowl is going to be all that different. If the people of El Paso want to continue staging the game, then they should.
First- and second-round losers in a playoff could even take a slot in a late December bowl game. As long as the bowls dont mess with the playoff, who cares what they do? The more football the better.
At worst some of the true bottom-feeder bowls (the ones owned by ESPN) will have to fold for lack of eligible teams. The death of the PapaJohns.com Bowl is a price I think everyone is willing to pay. Maybe even Papa John himself.
Home games for higher seeds early
The playoff would stage the first three rounds at the home field of the higher-seeded team before shifting to a neutral site, a la the Super Bowl. As a nod to history, it could be a rotation of famed stadiums such as the Rose Bowl, et al.
This allows the playoff to capitalize on perhaps college footballs greatest asset the pageantry, excitement and history of on-campus stadiums. There is nothing like a game day and it doesnt matter whether youre in Tuscaloosa or Ann Arbor or Norman or Los Angeles. Each one is uniquely thrilling and adds tremendous value to the product.
So why does college football stage its postseason in antiseptic pro stadiums?
Hosting games would be a boon to the schools and the campus communities literally tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.
It would also reward the higher seeds (again placing value on the regular season) by providing the distinct advantage of playing at home. To be a top two seed, and host through the championship game, would be a monster reward.
This would also placate complaints from northern teams that are seemingly always playing bowl games near the campus of their opponent.
Weve seen, say, USC have its way with Ohio State and Michigan in Pasadena, but what if the Trojans had to travel to Ohio Stadium on a cold and snowy day? Perhaps USC could prove it has grit not just talent. Intra-sectional games have all but died out due to recent scheduling philosophies, but the idea of them returning each December and January, famous jerseys in famous faraway stadiums can warm any fanâs heart.
The schedule
While the former Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, footballs top division might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.
Different schools have different academic schedules two guys sent me a chart last year that showed there was no weekend when someone wasnt having exams. However, college athletics has never allowed academics to stand in its way before. In this day of 12-team super leagues and midweek television games, this isnt an excuse.
Something can be worked out.
GVF
Talk Dirty To Me
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 14,060
- Likes
- 12,506
Got tired of hearing the Pac-10/USC thing myself, but alot of these posts are short selling the facts and what was actually said.
He was specifically speaking of bowl win/loss percentage. Pac-10 finished out 100% at 5-0. Best the SEC can do since SCar lost is 7-1 which is not 100%. That's the way bowl performance is graded. That was his point. We can't catch them is what he said, not can't compete. Granted, you can argue we are playing stronger bowl matchups, especially since they are already complete. But, they didn't play 5 pansies either.
He was specifically speaking of bowl win/loss percentage. Pac-10 finished out 100% at 5-0. Best the SEC can do since SCar lost is 7-1 which is not 100%. That's the way bowl performance is graded. That was his point. We can't catch them is what he said, not can't compete. Granted, you can argue we are playing stronger bowl matchups, especially since they are already complete. But, they didn't play 5 pansies either.
Advertisement
