|
Post by bark77dc on Jan 1, 2007 21:45:38 GMT -6
What happen if Boise St. completes what they have started against OU and Florida beats OSU? I know one of the polls has to award the NC to the winner of the BCS title game, but a team with no losses deserves a share don't they?
|
|
|
Post by fort on Jan 1, 2007 22:21:50 GMT -6
Shared titles are the devil. I seriously hate nothing worse than shared titles in college football. Why the heck call it the "National Championship" game if the winner isn't the only "National Champion"? It makes no sense to me. I want to punch the voters when I hear USC won two in a row a couple years back. Ugh...
|
|
|
Post by blackfly73 on Jan 1, 2007 22:55:56 GMT -6
I do believe they should have a playoff system but with only 12 teams. I beleive all conferences should go to a a once a year challenge, like Basketball. Big Ten vs. ACC Big 12 vs. SEC Big East vs. C-USA WAC vs. MAC Neat idea with the conference challenges !!!!! How would your 12 team bowl system work? You'd need byes I assume. With 4 byes - that would work out to a system lasting a month. Who gets the byes - PAC 10, SEC, Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Big East? Which for conferences get the byes? If we shorten the field to say 8 - what do we do with co-champs that can occur in the Big 10 and PAC 10 ? Do they get left behind for a MAC/WAC school every year? What happens with Notre Dame? God knows they should be in the Big Ten - but their TV revenue won't allow them to do that. Where are those games going to be played? Home team/neutral sites? As someone previously mentioned you would have to shorten the season by a few games - and this might cut out ALL non-conference games - Bye Bye ND-USC & Florida-FSU/Miami. As a fan, I'm not so sure I'd risk some of those non-con games to get a playoff. I also think travel costs, not for teams, but for fans comes into it. Alot of the 'pull' a team has for a bowl game comes from its travelling fan base (eg Notre Dame) - would you still get the same response for 4-6 consecutive weeks of travel for a playoff? Currently the travel occurs mostly over the holidays and is a one shot deal. The NCAA bball tournament model works because : 1) A large number of games can be played in a short amount of time in the same location - this cuts down on fan travel costs. 2) A reasonably large starting pool begins the tournament (64). Most of these don't transfer to football well however. I like the old system, and college ball for the reason it IS controversial, and it keeps us playing what-ifs all year round.
|
|
|
Post by bark77dc on Jan 2, 2007 8:37:13 GMT -6
I don't like shared Titles either, but, an arguement has to be made to match up the 2 undefeated teams in the "National Championship game" If I am OSU and I win the NC, I still would not like the fact that there is still another team out there that is undefeated and can resonably argue they are the best in the nation.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 2, 2007 9:05:57 GMT -6
But why is Ohio State #1? Tell me what they have accomplished to be #1. They almost got beat by Illinois, the fighting Zooks. If they had won a conference championship, then maybe they could be considered. They basically defeated a very weak Big Ten. If they played in the SEC, they would probably place behind Kentucky and South Carolina. Now, if they beat Florida to win the BCS championship, then I will gladly say I am wrong. Just an opinion. Coach, Are you talking about the weak Big 10 that had 2 teams beat SEC teams? I am just checking for the record... In reality people have been down on the Big 10 in this thread. Michigan was embarrassed, but Pete Carroll with a month of preperation and all that talent is tough to beat. Sure, they lost to UCLA and Oregon State, both subpar teams, but they still have talent. People forget that. Yeah, they played beneath themselves for 2 games, but that is the thing about having a lot of talent. While you may get disappointing games, if you do happen to play well, you can make anyone look average on any given day. That is USC. Iowa played with Texas. For most of the game they lead. Anyone out there predict that would happen. Iowa was the 9th place team in the Big 10. Minnesota blew a 31 point lead. Yep they lost, but it wasn't like they didn't belong. Minnesota under Mason has a history of collapsing with Big leads. See Michigan games twice in the last 4 years. What conference is really that tough? The SEC? Auburn slipped by an average and in my opinon poorly coached Nebraska team (and I am an NU season ticket holder). Tennesse loses to Penn State, Arkansas loses to 3rd place big 10 team Wisconsin. The bowl games, while interesting does nothing to produce any kind of National Champion. If you want to have a bowl games in their current state, then don't even name a national champion. Don't have polls. What's the point? If you don't want to prove it on the field with a legitimate playoff system and getting good matchups are your goal, then why even name a champion? Totally pointless given the current state of things in D1 football. Every excuse the presidents offer is just that. Every other team sport in college athletics manages to have a playoff and somehow it isn't detrimental to their kids' education or lives or health.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2007 10:43:35 GMT -6
I think we'd lose a great part of the bowl game purpose with a playoff.
Think about the lower tiered bowl games. A school like Colorado State will never be a national champion, but each year they could claim Liberty Bowl champs, Holiday Bowl Champs, Emerald Bowl champs, etc. That is a level of pride achievable by about 100 Division 1-A teams. It helps with recruiting the kids they need to recruit and it is a reward to those who came to the school with the chance of getting there.
Smaller schools need the playoffs because there is no way that the lower levels could have a bowl system. It's not a case of the smaller ones doing it the right way, they're doing it the only way that makes sense for them.
I know that some consider that there would be an 8-team playoff and still have the minor bowls, but there would be a significantly lower interest in those games. I was disappointed this year the a bowl game would be on the NFL network because it became something that I couldn't have. I couldn't turn on my TV and just watch it. I believe that's what would happen with a playoff--they'd keep the bowl games but they'd become insignificant in the eyes of many.
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 2, 2007 11:36:53 GMT -6
I agree with you somewhat, but many of the ealry bowls are already insignificant in the eyes of many, other than fans of the schools that are in them.
How many people were interested in the Auburn/Nebraska Cotton Bowl game? I wasn't hearing a lot of buzz about it nationally.
|
|
|
Post by slydaddy on Jan 2, 2007 12:16:42 GMT -6
But why is Ohio State #1? Tell me what they have accomplished to be #1. They almost got beat by Illinois, the fighting Zooks. If they had won a conference championship, then maybe they could be considered. They basically defeated a very weak Big Ten. If they played in the SEC, they would probably place behind Kentucky and South Carolina. Now, if they beat Florida to win the BCS championship, then I will gladly say I am wrong. Just an opinion. Coach, Are you talking about the weak Big 10 that had 2 teams beat SEC teams? I am just checking for the record... In reality people have been down on the Big 10 in this thread. Michigan was embarrassed, but Pete Carroll with a month of preperation and all that talent is tough to beat. Sure, they lost to UCLA and Oregon State, both subpar teams, but they still have talent. People forget that. Yeah, they played beneath themselves for 2 games, but that is the thing about having a lot of talent. While you may get disappointing games, if you do happen to play well, you can make anyone look average on any given day. That is USC. Iowa played with Texas. For most of the game they lead. Anyone out there predict that would happen. Iowa was the 9th place team in the Big 10. Minnesota blew a 31 point lead. Yep they lost, but it wasn't like they didn't belong. Minnesota under Mason has a history of collapsing with Big leads. See Michigan games twice in the last 4 years. What conference is really that tough? The SEC? Auburn slipped by an average and in my opinon poorly coached Nebraska team (and I am an NU season ticket holder). Tennesse loses to Penn State, Arkansas loses to 3rd place big 10 team Wisconsin. The bowl games, while interesting does nothing to produce any kind of National Champion. If you want to have a bowl games in their current state, then don't even name a national champion. Don't have polls. What's the point? If you don't want to prove it on the field with a legitimate playoff system and getting good matchups are your goal, then why even name a champion? Totally pointless given the current state of things in D1 football. Every excuse the presidents offer is just that. Every other team sport in college athletics manages to have a playoff and somehow it isn't detrimental to their kids' education or lives or health. Touche coach, I have been wrong before and I am wrong now. Tennessee's offense looked very unprepared for the Penn State D, and they lost. Arkansas got beat by a very good Wisconsin team. Even if Florida beats OSU, I still will not be happy. My whole problem with the thing is the so-called "Mid-west media bias", I mean all you ever hear is Ohio State this, Michigan that. That is great if you like those teams, but it seems the SEC gets left out of the limelight. Oh well, I will go cry in my corn flakes now.
|
|
|
Post by blackfly73 on Jan 2, 2007 12:36:51 GMT -6
My whole problem with the thing is the so-called "Mid-west media bias", I mean all you ever hear is Ohio State this, Michigan that. That is great if you like those teams, but it seems the SEC gets left out of the limelight. In the Mid-West its seen as the other way around - and SEC bias. That's all we hear is LSU, Florida, Arkansas... and how the SEC is soooooo much better than the Big-10, and the Big-10 teams can't compete. Maybe that means in reality they're about equal?
|
|
CoachJ
Junior Member
Posts: 307
|
Post by CoachJ on Jan 2, 2007 14:35:33 GMT -6
Coach, Are you talking about the weak Big 10 that had 2 teams beat SEC teams? I am just checking for the record... In reality people have been down on the Big 10 in this thread. Michigan was embarrassed, but Pete Carroll with a month of preperation and all that talent is tough to beat. Sure, they lost to UCLA and Oregon State, both subpar teams, but they still have talent. People forget that. Yeah, they played beneath themselves for 2 games, but that is the thing about having a lot of talent. While you may get disappointing games, if you do happen to play well, you can make anyone look average on any given day. That is USC. Iowa played with Texas. For most of the game they lead. Anyone out there predict that would happen. Iowa was the 9th place team in the Big 10. Minnesota blew a 31 point lead. Yep they lost, but it wasn't like they didn't belong. Minnesota under Mason has a history of collapsing with Big leads. See Michigan games twice in the last 4 years. What conference is really that tough? The SEC? Auburn slipped by an average and in my opinon poorly coached Nebraska team (and I am an NU season ticket holder). Tennesse loses to Penn State, Arkansas loses to 3rd place big 10 team Wisconsin. The bowl games, while interesting does nothing to produce any kind of National Champion. If you want to have a bowl games in their current state, then don't even name a national champion. Don't have polls. What's the point? If you don't want to prove it on the field with a legitimate playoff system and getting good matchups are your goal, then why even name a champion? Totally pointless given the current state of things in D1 football. Every excuse the presidents offer is just that. Every other team sport in college athletics manages to have a playoff and somehow it isn't detrimental to their kids' education or lives or health. Touche coach, I have been wrong before and I am wrong now. Tennessee's offense looked very unprepared for the Penn State D, and they lost. Arkansas got beat by a very good Wisconsin team. Even if Florida beats OSU, I still will not be happy. My whole problem with the thing is the so-called "Mid-west media bias", I mean all you ever hear is Ohio State this, Michigan that. That is great if you like those teams, but it seems the SEC gets left out of the limelight. Oh well, I will go cry in my corn flakes now. No need to worry about it. I am a Hawkeye fan stuck in Nebraska, so I understand your point of view. I even have Nebraska tickets because a one hour drive is much easier than several hours to Iowa City each weekend.
|
|
|
Post by superpower on Jan 2, 2007 15:22:53 GMT -6
I love all the bowl games and the tradition of the bowl season. I know others would like to see a playoff system, but I like all the discussion of the "what if" scenarios. The only problem I see with the current situation is the long lay-off from the end of the season until the bowl games.
|
|