Mountain West Conference = AQ BCS?

[knapplc]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

[sd'sker]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

[ESPY]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

[sd'sker]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

that is funny.

but i am very passionate about the bcs v. playoff debate.

[knapplc]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

that is funny.

but i am very passionate about the bcs v. playoff debate.

Me too. The BCS is a cancer on the sport I love most.

[sd'sker]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

that is funny.

but i am very passionate about the bcs v. playoff debate.

Me too. The BCS is a cancer on the sport I love most.

i know people feel differently, but, for me at least, a playoff system (where you could still have bowl games for the rest of the teams) is so obviously better, and simple.

[junior4949]

The 4-5 loss thing isn't really that absurd..

Happens pretty much every season in the NFL..The only few times I've actually watched the SuperBowl for more than the nifty commercials was the couple of times there was an undefeated or one-loss team playing in it.

 

Parity is real...good or bad, teams that used to win your "popularity contests" can't be counted on to win all their games anymore..making a playoff slightly more palletable.

 

I know this isn't the NFL, but 4-5 loss teams winning it all IS very probable..Every other sport with playoffs have them on a nearly constant basis.

 

But one of the main things that makes Division-1 Football so unique and enjoyable, is that the champion is rewarded for pretty much the entire season...Not just the team that got hot at the end.

 

The "best team" doesn't always win, but they usually have the best season.

 

There are a myriad of reasons why teams with four losses make the NFL playoffs: greater parity, smaller league size, more games, better players overall, etc. It's simply not a comparator to college football.

 

Parity in college has been attempted with the scholarship limits in the 90s, and it has had an effect on the overall play of D1A football, but there are still tiers of teams out there. All 120 teams are not the same, and we can usually easily find eight or twelve or even sixteen teams to make a playoff that are a cut above the masses. But here's the thing - even in years where the lines between the last four teams that make the college playoffs and the first four who don't make it are quite blurry, it's still a better system than sportswriters voting because human guesswork will be taken out of the equation.

 

I've heard the "unique" argument just about every time this discussion comes up, and frankly it holds no water. "Unique" does not equal "good."

 

 

Exactly! Unique doesn't equal good. What is insane is the fact that we continue to go through the same process each and every year and expecting a different outcome. The reason I'm for an 8 team playoff is the fact that with more than that you run the risk of a team sandbagging it at the end of the year. If they have to finish top 8 to make the playoff, the risk of a team sandbagging it diminishes significantly.

[sd'sker]

The 4-5 loss thing isn't really that absurd..

Happens pretty much every season in the NFL..The only few times I've actually watched the SuperBowl for more than the nifty commercials was the couple of times there was an undefeated or one-loss team playing in it.

 

Parity is real...good or bad, teams that used to win your "popularity contests" can't be counted on to win all their games anymore..making a playoff slightly more palletable.

 

I know this isn't the NFL, but 4-5 loss teams winning it all IS very probable..Every other sport with playoffs have them on a nearly constant basis.

 

But one of the main things that makes Division-1 Football so unique and enjoyable, is that the champion is rewarded for pretty much the entire season...Not just the team that got hot at the end.

 

The "best team" doesn't always win, but they usually have the best season.

 

There are a myriad of reasons why teams with four losses make the NFL playoffs: greater parity, smaller league size, more games, better players overall, etc. It's simply not a comparator to college football.

 

Parity in college has been attempted with the scholarship limits in the 90s, and it has had an effect on the overall play of D1A football, but there are still tiers of teams out there. All 120 teams are not the same, and we can usually easily find eight or twelve or even sixteen teams to make a playoff that are a cut above the masses. But here's the thing - even in years where the lines between the last four teams that make the college playoffs and the first four who don't make it are quite blurry, it's still a better system than sportswriters voting because human guesswork will be taken out of the equation.

 

I've heard the "unique" argument just about every time this discussion comes up, and frankly it holds no water. "Unique" does not equal "good."

 

 

Exactly! Unique doesn't equal good. What is insane is the fact that we continue to go through the same process each and every year and expecting a different outcome. The reason I'm for an 8 team playoff is the fact that with more than that you run the risk of a team sandbagging it at the end of the year. If they have to finish top 8 to make the playoff, the risk of a team sandbagging it diminishes significantly.

i also think an 8 team playoff is perfect. you made a good point, but i also believe in any given year, there are really only 5-6 teams who could actually win the championship. 8 teams make sure that the teams with the best chance of winning get in, a not too many extra. the 9th best team will complain, but they really did not have a chance, and they had a season to work into the 8th spot.

 

the other way, the these super conferences in the talks, would be to have the conference champs and a few at-large.

[jnkyrdoff6]

i also think an 8 team playoff is perfect. you made a good point, but i also believe in any given year, there are really only 5-6 teams who could actually win the championship. 8 teams make sure that the teams with the best chance of winning get in, a not too many extra. the 9th best team will complain, but they really did not have a chance, and they had a season to work into the 8th spot.

 

the other way, the these super conferences in the talks, would be to have the conference champs and a few at-large.

 

Boy I don't know. I've thought about this a lot. I know what you mean about only around "5-6 teams who could actually win," but you'd cheat so many teams. There are always plenty of teams that could win that have one or two losses, sometimes 0, that aren't in the top 8. Take Marshall of 1997, for example. They went undefeated that year with Randy and Chad Pennington, but they finished the season at number 25 in the coaches poll, I believe, and unranked in the media. I'm just going off memory, but I know they weren't even near the top 20.

 

I think it should be a 32 team system. That way you have the top 25, and 7 bubble teams.

[junior4949]

^ I hope you're kidding.

[sd'sker]

i also think an 8 team playoff is perfect. you made a good point, but i also believe in any given year, there are really only 5-6 teams who could actually win the championship. 8 teams make sure that the teams with the best chance of winning get in, a not too many extra. the 9th best team will complain, but they really did not have a chance, and they had a season to work into the 8th spot.

 

the other way, the these super conferences in the talks, would be to have the conference champs and a few at-large.

 

Boy I don't know. I've thought about this a lot. I know what you mean about only around "5-6 teams who could actually win," but you'd cheat so many teams. There are always plenty of teams that could win that have one or two losses, sometimes 0, that aren't in the top 8. Take Marshall of 1997, for example. They went undefeated that year with Randy and Chad Pennington, but they finished the season at number 25 in the coaches poll, I believe, and unranked in the media. I'm just going off memory, but I know they weren't even near the top 20.

 

I think it should be a 32 team system. That way you have the top 25, and 7 bubble teams.

i just think 8 teams is perfect because every game in the season still matters, but every deserving team can still get in to the top 8. one or two loses won't necessarily ruin a season, especially if they were loses to good teams or early in the season. and i understand your point with marshall, but even undefeated, they still probably weren't good enough for a run against the top ten teams. if there was ever a 32 team playoff, which seems crazy (no offense) i would guess a the lowest seed to every win it would be a 3 seed, rendering the rest of the teams being there a waste of time.

[huKSer]

I also like the +1 idea for the BCS, much more than a playoff system. The playoffs are great for the NFL, but I really think they would detract a lot from the fun of the bowl system in college football. The best part about bowl games is that there are numerous winners, not just one. Think about it - if Nebraska finished last season with a loss rather than a bowl win, would the hype & hope for this season be as prominent knowing there could be only one champion in the end?

 

What is "the fun of the bowl system?" What does that mean? There are 30-something bowls out there, about 25 of which nobody really, really cares about unless their team is playing. For the most part, a good half of those bowl games are no more compelling than any average Saturday afternoon game in late September. It's just lipstick on a pig for the most part, and frankly, I'm tired of kissing that pig.

 

What is compelling about these bowls:

 

GMAC Bowl

Sun Bowl

Liberty Bowl

papajohns.com Bowl

Insight Bowl

International Bowl

Humanitarian Bowl

Champs Sports Bowl

Emerald Bowl

Meineke Car Care Bowl

Little Caesars Bowl

Maaco Las Vegas Bowl

St. Petersburg Bowl

Outback Bowl

Hawaii Bowl

Poinsettia Bowl

New Orleans Bowl

New Mexico Bowl

 

If your team isn't playing in one of these bowls, is it really an "event" to watch any of them? Is it more compelling in any way to watch these bowls than any random game on any random Saturday throughout the season? Why?

No one is going to be playing in this one anymore - it just went belly up

[HUSKER 37]

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

that is funny.

but i am very passionate about the bcs v. playoff debate.

Me too. The BCS is a cancer on the sport I love most.

 

Me Three. But since (after) the '97 season, I've actually felt that any potential playoff would ultimately be the deathblow to my only favourite sport.. My ultimate fear is that you short sighted, emotion-driven, idealistic and grandiose playoff-mongers will someday severely damage a sport that, by virtually any measure, is doing quite well...Especially when compared to sports or divisions of Football that DO have playoffs.

 

 

 

I could live with a plus one scenario...a week or two after all the Bowls were over..the two undefeated teams left over would play..if only one undefeated or a bunch of one-loss teams existed after the bowl season...THEN you go to the best two according to all polls combined (like the present BCS polls).

 

But heres the problem: Eventually a plus-one would become a four-team playoff or worse.. an eight-team playoff. Then a 16-team event. Then 32. And on and on. Thats what happened in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), which began as a four-team playoff, then grew to eight and now 16. The NCAA mens basketball tournament expanded from 24 teams in 1974 to 65 today.

 

And therein lies one of my biggest concerns college football evolving into something we dont recognize.

 

I don't even think you can really find a "real champion" unless you do a best-of-seven playoff format (or at least three)...Since the advent of those various conference championship games (Necessitated by having so many teams, they don't get to play all the other members)...I wonder how many teams won a rematch (I'm still pissed about T.O. having to face OU again in the OB in '78? after finally beating Barry for the first time in 7 tries)

Hopefully, It's obvious that round-robin play (or something close to it) is superior to split divisions (see SEC, Big 12, ACC) and possible repeat matchups in conference title games. Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents? Do you follow?

 

 

One of the more stressful and the thing I liked about College Football was that you only got one chance at your opponent..everything was left on the field..There was no tomorrow...The whole season was like that...every game having national championship implications.

 

The sport is arguably more popular than its ever been. TV ratings and attendance are up. You just saw 70,000? fans at Nebraskas spring game. And you just want to blow it all up and start over?

 

Im not saying a playoff would render the regular season meaningless. But I think its incumbent upon college footballs brain trust to protect the sanctity of the regular season. College football has by far the best regular season of any sport. Maybe an eight-team playoff wouldnt have much impact on the regular season. However, we all know the playoff wouldnt stop at eight teams.

 

Besides, Im even a little concerned about a playoff marginalizing the bowl structure, which helps make college football "special"...Heck..just ask T.O.Bull..The BCS already has tarnished that in some way over what we had before.

 

Since I've gotten over 30, I've come to the conclusion that controversy is a positive..I still love getting into arguements with Mechicken fans about how badly we would've crushed their striped weasles had they not hid from us in the Rose Bowl in '97...If we'd actually played, we'd have to talk about the weather..or worse..Buckeyes.

 

Playoff-mongers tend to forget some key details as they attempt to save the world.

 

For instance, the fans. Say a certain team is rolling along in the playoffs. Will fans be able to book an airplane ticket in a weeks time? When its a one-game bowl situation, fans have a month to find prime ticket rates. How many fans are going to be able to afford to go fill stadiums on short notice?

 

Think about the two teams that advance to the title game. During the month long playoff process, the teams coaches would have little-to-no time to recruit, and their classes probably would get raided. Some reward.

 

 

I think the bowls do a lot to bolster excitement in programs. Some feel there are too many bowls. But there are a lot of good coaches and a lot of people who work awfully hard in programs. As it stands, a lot of players and a lot of programs are rewarded for hard work.

 

In a playoff format, do you really think coaches and players would enjoy the bowl experience? The must-win nature of a playoff would become a grind. Forget the sightseeing and off-field activities that go along with bowl games. The pressure on everyone involved would be immense.

 

Playoff proponents like to say that the reason you play the season is to win a championship. I've always felt the chance to win a championship is a reason to play, not the reason.

 

Of the current BCS system, Elventy-four teams go back to campus as champions...(ok..34) If you go into a playoff system, you have one winner and everyone else goes home a loser...for several players, that's their last game ever.

 

So... how does Tom Osborne feel about a playoff system?

 

Well, right now were looking at an awful lot of teams playing 14 games, he said. If you go to a plus-one (format), youre at 15 games. Were really asking a lot out of student athletes.

 

Osborne remembers the days of nine-game regular seasons. Back then, he said, offseason training programs for players werent as extensive.

 

Now players are involved in some kind of training almost year-round, and theyre trying to go to school, Osborne said. They have normal progress rules academically that they have to meet that they didnt have back then. … Theres just so much being put on their plate.

 

I really question the wisdom of a playoff. … Right now, the season is the playoff. Thats the thing so many people dont grasp. They look at the professional model where you can maybe lose 40 percent or even 50 percent of your games and still qualify and win a championship. Right now, the way it is, every game is important. You cant really take a Saturday off. Strength of schedule is important.

 

Maybe we can tweak the system. Maybe you can have your computer ranking on one thing or another, and have a different format in selecting the teams. But I just know that no matter how you do it, youre not going to have something that satisfies everybody.

[VA Husker Fan]

Take Marshall of 1997, for example. They went undefeated that year with Randy and Chad Pennington, but they finished the season at number 25 in the coaches poll, I believe, and unranked in the media. I'm just going off memory, but I know they weren't even near the top 20.

 

I think it should be a 32 team system. That way you have the top 25, and 7 bubble teams.

You shouldn't make arguments based on "facts" you "remember", because your memory sucks. Marshall lost 3 games in 1997. In 1999, they went unbeaten, and finished in the top 10.

[HUSKER 37]

So is this where threads go to die?

 

Didn't even occur to me that this thread would be moved to <more sports> <NCAA>

 

I mean..Technically it makes sense, but who even knows about this area?