I think they were hoping you wouldn't pick up on that. :icon_wink:Originally Posted by glm47
|
|
|
|
|
I think they were hoping you wouldn't pick up on that. :icon_wink:
I agree, to an extent. It would take time to evolve, but I think an 8 team playoff WOULD be a little better than what we have now because at least non-AQ schools would have a CHANCE. I think it would also help our recruiting because the recruits would know that we now have a chance to play for a national championship if we play well enough. Therefore, we might see more non-AQ schools cracking the playoffs in the future.
i don't care about diminishing the importance of the bowls at all. in the grand scheme of things how important were the independence bowl or the champs sports bowls? (answer: no importance at all) but i know i sure enjoyed the heck out of the indy bowl (froze my rear off but it was great). unless you are in the title game, all other bowls are just rewards for the teams and fans.
what I AM concerned about is diminishing the importance of the REGULAR SEASON.
look at college hoops for example. the non conference schedule is nothing more than some tune up games and a few made for TV events. the conference schedule determines who gets into the big dance. the tournament is when people actually start watching the sport. most people don't watch a single game until AFTER THE SEASON IS OVER. compare that to college football where every game have HUGE importance. lose 1 game...no title shot for you. lose 2 games...no BCS bowl for you. lose 3+ games...you are relegated to minor bowl status...if you get into one at all. that is huge stakes for every game. it means that every game is worth watching. every media moron seems to be united behind a 16 team playoff taking the top 16 in the AP poll (or a different poll). that would ruin the regular season. you would see plenty of big OOC games dropped because there would be no need to risk a loss that may drop you out of the top 16. i would prefer a 12 team playoff like the NFL. all 11 conference winners (making the conference season even more important) and 1 (only ONE) at large team. that keeps an exciting regular season. it is fair to all conferences. and nobody can claim it is not a legit way to declare a champion.
but alas...that makes too much sense and covers all the bases, so it will never happen...
Grassy,
I don't agree with that at all. The same type of people that don't watch college hoops until March Madness are the same type of people that don't want college football until the Bowls and more specifically BCS bowls. Every sport has die hards, true fans and casual fans. That has nothing to do with whether there is a playoff or not it is just human nature.
Also the non-conference in college hoops is huge and has an enormous impact on who gets in the tourney and who doesn't. The selection comittee puts an enormous weight on that and that is exactly why Utah St despite having one of the best records in college BB had to win the WAC tourney to get into the Big Dance. Because they didn't play anyone. Actually I think this might have an opposite effect. Because the current setup in college football puts so much weight on the regular season all of the fans are deprived of good non-con games. All the good teams do is load up on patsies. I would love to see LSU/Texas, USC @ Fla. St. or OU/Georgia during the regular season but you won't because they are all scared of getting one loss. I'm not saying Florida should play at Texas, at OU and at USC for thier non conference schedule but these BCS teams have got to grow a pair for the sake of the fan. I would argue that the casual college football fan could care less about almost the entire non-conference slate AND many conference games of the regular season the same way the casual college hoops fan ignores much of that regular season. It's not that the games aren't important, its that most of the games are so lopsided they are over by the end of the first quarter. As much as you might enjoy those classic Florida St. vs. Western Carolina St. barnburners most college football fans could care less.
I do however have no problem with your playoff format though. I think that is very interesting. I just want every conference represented.
Premier bowls (i.e. current BCS bowls) could simply bid each year to host a round in the playoffs. All other bowls could continue to offer consolation matches for teams that did not make the playoff bowl system. If the NIT can exist in contrast to the NCAA 65 field tournament, why couldn't this model work?
Or the current BCS bowls could host the semi-finals and rotate who gets the championship game. The other bowls could host opening round games and those left out if bowl eligible would go through the same process they do now to get into the remaining bowls. This whole set-up really wouldn't change the bowls as much as people are acting like it would.
I think the big concerns having bowls host early rounds may actually be for the cost to the fan. It could be a financial strain to follow your team to 4 different bowl cities. This in turn is why the bowls think they would lose money. From a fan stand point, I would prefer that only the last two (maybe three) rounds to be played on neutral sites. In a 16 team format, the 1st game should be played at home. The largest negative to my plan would be that the lowest seeded teams would probably be the ones travelling and the current Non-AQ teams would be assumed to be the lower seeded teams.
Two rounds would equal 3 bowl/playoff sites (smart thing here would be to bid these sites out to the highest bidders)
Three rounds would equal 7 bowl/playoff sites - there aren't even that many current BCS bowl sites now.
I don't think any of the teams should host home games. They should be all games at neutral sites just like march madness. For example, Utah should not have had to play at Bama last year. I don't think the bowls that host NCAA College Football playoff games are going to have ANY attendence issues. In my scenario the bowls that are currently having attendance issue would be hosting games involving team not in the playoffs.
FSU DID play Southern Cal regular season in the late 90's. we have also recently played Alabama, Colorado, Syracuse, Notre Dame, @ Louisville (even before they were Big East), and BYU. this year our OOC games are @UF, @BYU, and home vs USF. isn't that the sort of schedule you want to see? an AQ team on the road at a non-AQ? hard to say those 3 games shows a lack of "onions". 2010 we start a 2 year series with OU. we also have 2 games vs WV in the near future. and of course we have always had UF OOC.
just because SEC schools** have an OOC slate that makes Temple fans blush doesn't mean that all AQ teams do so.
** Tennessee is the main exception to the SEC's tendency for weak scheduling.
I have never seen anyone suggest that a 16 team playoff consist of the top 16 in the polls. Every playoff of this size includes each of the conference champs plus at-large teams. Any playoff that does not include all conference champs is bogus in my view.
I just had a thought about the home field advantage issue. Why not do it like the World Series? Each year 6 conference champs will have a first round game, the next year they go on the road, regardless of record. Therefore, you could have a USC or Florida or Ohio State playing at North Texas or Troy or Boise in a first round matchup. Of course with 11 conferences, the math is going to get a little screwy, but once every so often, every conference will have back to back home games for a first round game. I have not gamed this out over several years to see how it would work out, but there are plenty of smart people that could come up with something.
Come on Grassy, you are splitting hairs, I just randomly threw out those teams as examples. If FSU is scheduling tough OOC competition then that makes them the exception, not the rule!!! The rest of the BCS is NOT following their lead.
Here is my input on the issue. I agree congress has the right to know how government money is being spent in state universities (mainly making sure it goes toward the education of students). Congress may have an issue with the bcs because it could be considered a monopoly for the AQ conferences. normally I would rather see congress keep it's nose out of the issue, but i would rather them look at and do nothing about the bcs than spend more tax payer money.
I like the idea of a 24 team play-off system. Each conference winner would get an automatic bid, and the other bids come from a combination of polls and a version of the rpi. The 16 lowest ranking teams would play the first week (16 v. 24, 17 v. 23, etc.), giving the top eight teams a bye. Then following week the winners play the top 8 (lowest seeded winner plays #1). This would allow the lower ranking teams to have a chance to upset a higher ranking team, and bring more competition to the field. the money could be split like the basketball tournament does with the credits. that way every one gets involved with the money. The bowls could then bid on the playoff games (23 total games including national championship) if they wanted to participate. If not they cold have their choice of the remaining teams. It would not extend the season any further into january, and give teams more time to practice.
i agree, FSU is one of a few exceptions. the entire Big 10, nearly the entire SEC, and much of the Big 12 do schedule nothing more than tomato cans OOC. that has been their tradition for generations. nothing will change that unfortunately.
DUH!! They have a pretty tough conference schedule to deal with.
I had previously thought of a very similar format. I would prefer though, that the top eight conference champions have bye's with favoritism given to the conferences that actually have a championship game.
However, I think a 24 team playoff is a long way off. We will go to a 8 or 12 team format first (if ever). Personnally, I don't think that a +1 will ever happen.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote