Conferences warn non aq leagues

[BOJ]

Well I for one agree with them. Does a undefeated team from a not so good conference equal a undefeated team from B10,B12 or sec? So lets just say NU runs the gautlet next year, takes thier licks but wins the B10 undefeated, you are saying they should play, say Louisiana-Lafayette if they went undefeated? That would not put butts in the seats. Simply put it's about filling stadiums and TV viewers. They are not saying there is'nt any good teams in those conferences, just with a weak sos how can you compare them to our conferences. Best thing Boise could do is schedule say NU,OK,Alabama,OH St as thier non conf games AND win all them. Thats the only way they will gain any traction or respect from the "big boys".

This is not about schools, it's about conferences. Each putting thier best up against anothers best. It doesnt always work out that way, but I think what the big boys are saying is,we have invited the little guys to come and eat at our table in our house, with the food that we bought, and now they are asking to sleep with our women. With the contract set to expire, the big boys are saying, if you dont like our food and are going to be ungrateful for us inviting you to our table, then theres the door. Say what you will about Delany but he stands up for the B10 and knows how to run a conference.

 

I have a great deal of respect for Delany, but his stance in this is wrong. Last year with Boise St. & TCU going undefeated was a great example, as is this year with TCU. No, their strength of schedule isn't comparable to an SEC team, a Big 12 team or a Big 10 team, but that doesn't mean they can't vie for the title. ANY team that has a solid record should have a chance - but with the BCS, only two teams have a shot at the title. With a playoff you give solid teams like Boise and TCU a chance to fight their way through tough teams into a championship game. It legitimizes a championship, and would eliminate the "Mythical" tag most people put on it today.

 

I apologize if this has already been brought up but I couldn't read all the posts (been reading a lot on here today), but it seems everyone forgets (when defending the non-aq schools) that the bowls are invitationals. There is no right for any school to go to a bowl. The bowls invite schools to their bowls b/c it will make for good t.v ratings and people will go to the game, that is the only reason bowls exist in the first place. When Delany speaks of giving up a seat at the table in Rose Bowl that is b/c the Big Ten and Pac 10 (12) actually own the bowl; they are literally giving up a seat at the table simply to give it up for equity's sake. They lose money when a team such as TCU or Boise go to the game (absolutely nothing against those programs, both solid), but the fact of the matter is that bowls are invitational arrangements meant to garner money and it is the bowls place to decide who they invite and should not be pressured to invite teams they don't want there. We do not live in a socialist society in this country where everyone gets to eat your bread after the long hours spent milling it. Sorry for rant.

[knapplc]

A #9 team with a loss or two may whine as much as an unbeaten #3 team does today, but nobody will listen to them.

 

Here's one scheme I saw for a 16 seed playoff. All 11 FBS conference get 1 automatic bid with the remaining 5 at large.

 

 

Doesn't look like much of an improvement to me and so much of the excitement and drama of the regular season is robbed. You probably have to give up a CCG and 1 regular season game for this system. The top teams still cruise through Sun Belt, MAC, or C-USA teams first round and then play a few games that are CCG caliber anyway to get to the NCG.

 

That playoff format is a farce. There is no way you're going to take ONLY the top teams from each conference. A 16-team format is the only way to go, with some poll mechanism being used to determine the teams. Yes, there will be griping from team #17, but the case for the 17th team is FAR worse than the case for the #3 team in the current format. Even in a plus-one format, the #5 team often has an argument as legitimate as team #4. As you go further down the polls those arguments lose legitimacy, making a 16-team format the ideal solution.

 

A four-round playoff would not ruin the current format of games. You could start the last week of August, play your 12-week schedule, then have your playoffs. There is no reason to eliminate games, and the regular season's games do not become watered down because only slightly greater than 10% of your teams can actually make the playoffs. Yes, two teams will play a 16-game season, but that's only one game more than Villanova and Montana, the two teams in the D2 Finals last year, played.

 

If we could break these ridiculous bowl game ties from these conferences we could have a playoff. It's simple, it's been done for years by D2, and it makes sense. Enough with the BCS. Enough.

 

 

I'll disagree with knapp a little this format is ok, however it needs a lot of tweaking. Conf. usa, the MAC, and Sun Belt should not have automatic spots in the tourny. Alos I would say you add a minum reocrd lets just say 9-3 to get in. The more qualifcations, the more clear cut, the less contoversy. I'm afraid the point is moot, no matter what solution there will always be a new problem. This is the only level of footabll that does not have a playoff and no matter how good of systems that gets sugested it's probably going to stay that way for a long time to come.

 

You're not disagreeing with me, you're agreeing with me. The bold is a reiteration of what I said - they will not simply take the winner of every conference (see what I underlined in my post).

 

The reason for having a playoff is not that it solves every problem. Organizations use playoffs because they solve more problems than the alternative.

[knapplc]

So all the arguments against playoffs are red herrings and the argument for playoffs in regards to what happens to the bowl regime is too bad, life is not fair?

 

I guess the Big 10 should be thinking twice about our application because what's the point of having enough teams for two divisions without a conference championship. In fact I like our chances of a national championship a lot better in the Mountain West, because that's all that matters right? Who's #1 in in a system that cannot possibly determine who's really the best?

 

Since every main argument that you've listed is easily disposed of, or shown to be an outright fallacy because D2 already does it, yes, I think it's safe to say they are red herrings. As I showed in the link of Delany's testimony before congress, the main roadblock to a playoff is the Rose Bowl.

 

Whether the Big 10 would like to rethink our application is a different matter entirely. Remember that this is not only a marriage of football teams, but all athletic sports, and of course primarily it is a marriage of academic institutions. The money conferences like the SEC, Big 10, Pac-10(12) and ACC would lose from their CCGs going away would easily be offset by the money made in a playoff format. Again, we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars on the table, according to Delany.

 

And a playoff format will not make it easier for teams from weak conferences to get into the national championship game, it'll make it far more difficult - even prohibitively so. The 16 teams in a playoff would all represent more difficult competition than Boise St. or TCU has faced all year. Simply making the playoff wouldn't guarantee them the ability to play for the title - they'd have to earn it, just like the rest of us.

[Caven]

I have always been in favor of simplicity in the playoff. 8 team playoff. 6 conference champions and 2 at large. 1 at large is guarnteed to a non AQ team and the other is to the top ranked team not currently in. The first round of the playoffs is essentially your CCGs. Win those to get to the tourney.

 

First round = home games for the top 4 ranked teams the week before Christmas.

Second round = 2 games rotating between the 4 current major bowl sites. The other 2 bowl sites will have traditional bowl matchups with the 2nd place teams from their conferences. Rose bowl might even choose to sit out this round and go back to having B10/Pac12 game with the CCG losers as the reps.

Third round = championship when it is currently played.

 

 

Avoid missing any more school than currently because it all occurs over break. Only 1 game for most fans to travel to since lets face it - the title game will be full of corporate types and sold out before it is even known who the participants are.

[irafreak]

All playoff formats would be a farce. We wouldn't have the only two deserving unbeatens playing for the title this year. We'd have a silly little bracket with tcu and some other one loss school or an 8 man bracket with 5 one loss schools in it. It would be a joke. I would never want Nebraska to get through the big 10 and win the title game only to get tossed into a playoff and forced to face teams that are just now hitting their stride. The focus on the regular season is diminished with a playoff. It's just the facts. The chiefs lose in week one it's ho hum...Nebraska loses it's now a race to watch and hope for all the other unbeaten's to lose. That is entertainment....

[knapplc]

All playoff formats would be a farce. We wouldn't have the only two deserving unbeatens playing for the title this year. We'd have a silly little bracket with tcu and some other one loss school or an 8 man bracket with 5 one loss schools in it. It would be a joke. I would never want Nebraska to get through the big 10 and win the title game only to get tossed into a playoff and forced to face teams that are just now hitting their stride. The focus on the regular season is diminished with a playoff. It's just the facts. The chiefs lose in week one it's ho hum...Nebraska loses it's now a race to watch and hope for all the other unbeaten's to lose. That is entertainment....

 

So every other major and minor sport IN THE WORLD uses a farcical format to determine a champion, yet a popularity contest judged by some crunched numbers and a popularity contest is legitimate? Clearly we have different definitions of the words "farcical" and "legitimate."

[Caven]

All playoff formats would be a farce. We wouldn't have the only two deserving unbeatens playing for the title this year. We'd have a silly little bracket with tcu and some other one loss school or an 8 man bracket with 5 one loss schools in it. It would be a joke. I would never want Nebraska to get through the big 10 and win the title game only to get tossed into a playoff and forced to face teams that are just now hitting their stride. The focus on the regular season is diminished with a playoff. It's just the facts. The chiefs lose in week one it's ho hum...Nebraska loses it's now a race to watch and hope for all the other unbeaten's to lose. That is entertainment....

 

Will you still feel that way the year that you end up with a TCU/Boise championship game (substitute the appropriate non-AQ teams now that TCU is going Big East) because the best team they played was ranked in the 60s but every conference team has 2 losses because the leagues were just that tough that year? I can see it now. Nebraska loses by 1 point in a night game at Ohio State early in the season and then drops a tight game to Iowa or Michigan who had some injury problems early in the season and lost 3 but have hit their stride and catch some breaks when they play Nebraska. Nebraska then goes on to smoke OSU in the rematch. In the SEC a 2 loss Alabama smokes a 1 loss Florida in the SEC title game. The Pac 12, Big East and Big 12 don't have anyone worth and so for the title game you have a smoking hot Nebraska team and a smoking hot Alabama team....

 

going to the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl while the title game is a couple of crap teams who haven't played anyone. No thanks.

[knapplc]

Will you still feel that way the year that you end up with a TCU/Boise championship game (substitute the appropriate non-AQ teams now that TCU is going Big East) because the best team they played was ranked in the 60s but every conference team has 2 losses because the leagues were just that tough that year? I can see it now. Nebraska loses by 1 point in a night game at Ohio State early in the season and then drops a tight game to Iowa or Michigan who had some injury problems early in the season and lost 3 but have hit their stride and catch some breaks when they play Nebraska. Nebraska then goes on to smoke OSU in the rematch. In the SEC a 2 loss Alabama smokes a 1 loss Florida in the SEC title game. The Pac 12, Big East and Big 12 don't have anyone worth and so for the title game you have a smoking hot Nebraska team and a smoking hot Alabama team....

 

going to the Sugar Bowl and Rose Bowl while the title game is a couple of crap teams who haven't played anyone. No thanks.

 

Exactly. And in a playoff, no matter how weak your SOS is, you're going to have to fight through three of the top 16 teams in order to reach the finals.

 

In this system, if Boise doesn't have a brain fart in one quarter of one game this year, they're going to the MNC game. That does not seem like an equitable solution, and those who are speaking out in favor of the BCS have only to look at the results of last year and (almost) this year to see how easily their solution to the national championship question can be screwed up.

[kansas husker]

All playoff formats would be a farce. We wouldn't have the only two deserving unbeatens playing for the title this year. We'd have a silly little bracket with tcu and some other one loss school or an 8 man bracket with 5 one loss schools in it. It would be a joke. I would never want Nebraska to get through the big 10 and win the title game only to get tossed into a playoff and forced to face teams that are just now hitting their stride. The focus on the regular season is diminished with a playoff. It's just the facts. The chiefs lose in week one it's ho hum...Nebraska loses it's now a race to watch and hope for all the other unbeaten's to lose. That is entertainment....

 

So every other major and minor sport IN THE WORLD uses a farcical format to determine a champion, yet a popularity contest judged by some crunched numbers and a popularity contest is legitimate? Clearly we have different definitions of the words "farcical" and "legitimate."

 

Ira, don't you get tired of seeing an undefeted team not playing for a national title? I hate the arguement that a playoff diminishes the regular season, teams would still play for higher seeds, to get into the playoffs. I don't see the nfl regular season as being deminished. As knapplc ssid every other sport inthe world useses a playoff system. I would love to see a +1 system started and eventualy eveolve into a full playoff.

[Judoka]

Anyone concerned that Delaney et al. will follow through with their threat of pre BCS bowl selections once the current contract is up?