Why college football is better off without the BCS

[dutch91701]

It's like you didn't read any of my posts and then proceeded to call me a "pedestrian fan", followed by a bunch of made-up gibberish. Wait, that's precisely what you did.

Sadly, I've read all your posts. Unfortunately, there is no way to receive a refund of my time. You seem like an NFL fan that just wants something to do on Saturday, but the system in place now is too unfamiliar to you, so it MUST BE CHANGED!!!! The "vague 'soul of college football'" exists. You don't pay attention to such things, that is why I said you were a pedestrian fan. There's nothing wrong with being a pedestrian fan. Most people are pedestrian fans. Back to your original point, you aren't alone.

I got a bit ranty in the previous post, I'll admit to that, but it wasn't gibberish. It's been edited as I have thought better of comparing politics to football. That will only start more than it will finish.

 

[tschu]

Let's break it down shall we?

You and other pedestrian fans

I have no idea what this is about.

You and other pedestrian fans. Let's go and change other things that aren't hip and new while we're at it. Going and voting? Nah son, let's tweet the vote, #president. In that scenario, people who wouldn't vote previously would vote because it's flashy and new and makes sense to them and the companies involved score big-time.

Yeah, let's just gloss this over. You're using an example which seems to indicate that you believe that we went to a 4-team playoff because it would be hip and new and flashy. News flash: That's not the reason. When you have Dan Wetzel writing an entire book about the BCS being horrible and the need for a playoff, that would seem to be one item of legitimacy lended to the situation. Not to mention the basic common sense that most fans have applied.

Changing to a 4-team playoff makes more money and appeals to people who wouldn't otherwise be interested.

Now this seems reasonable. Makes more money, sure. It does because it technically adds one game to the bowl schedule, and because it inherently gives those four games more credibility in terms of crowning a champion, creating the extra attention on the game. Does that appeal to people who otherwise wouldn't be interested? Perhaps, and that would be great. Anything to help grow college football can't be a bad thing. It's weird that you're applying a negative connotation to such.

Bowls:

"You gonna watch the Sugar Bowl?"

"No I don't really follow Team X and Team Y"

--------------------------------------

Playoffs:

"You gonna watch the NATIONAL SEMIFINAL!?"

"Yeah that's a huge game!"

It'll increase ratings among people who don't give a crap about college football and wouldn't normally watch it. It does away with tradition for a few extra bucks and WILL NOT solve anything.

What tradition is being done away with? The Rose Bowl is still being played. All serious college football fans would watch anyways. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that no games will be played concurrent to the semifinals, so it'll be easier to watch the games. Meanwhile, the "people who don't give a crap about college football" may start giving a crap about college football. It certainly won't hurt.

4 teams? #5 will be pissed.

6 teams? #7 will be pissed.

8 teams? #9 will be pissed.

10+ teams? That's 17-18 games in a season for supposed student-athletes. But hey, let's just pay them all at that point. We're going that direction anyways.

And if we go to 64 teams the #65 team will be pissed. And if we go to four teams YOU will be pissed. Someone will always be unhappy, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop improving things to make the overall college football picture better.

And I agree, these athletes need to get paid at some point. I believe that in my lifetime we'll see a big breakaway from the NCAA by the large conferences into a league that pays players, as well as a deal with the NFL that ensures that these athletes can't jump to the NFL early and skip college football. But that's an entirely different subject.

 

[tschu]

If you're painting me as an NFL fan by may avatar, you're mistaken. I'm about 100 times more invested in college football than I am the NFL. It's just that everyone on this site has a Husker-related avatar, which seems redundant and pointless. So I went with my other team to stand out from the crowd.

 

[dutch91701]

If you're painting me as an NFL fan by may avatar, you're mistaken. I'm about 100 times more invested in college football than I am the NFL. It's just that everyone on this site has a Husker-related avatar, which seems redundant and pointless. So I went with my other team to stand out from the crowd.

I painted you as an NFL because of your opinions. That's how it struck me. I wouldn't invest that much of my argument into Clay Matthews wearing a Santa hat.

Let's break it down shall we?

You and other pedestrian fans

I have no idea what this is about.

I bolded what that was referencing. So if you can't get that then I don't know how I expected you to understand the rest of it. I owe you an apology.

More to the point: money makes the world go round. I know. All I've been saying is that it's a money grab masquerading as a "change for the better" and it seems to have people fooled. Basically that's my argument in one sentence.

 

[tschu]

It's all good

It's just weird that you'd paint anyone who isn't a staunch traditionalist as a pedestrian fan.

 

[Excel]

What is a "pedestrian fan"?

 

[tschu]

Casual fan, not hardcore fan, idk. Some other vague representation that he's created that doesn't fit with his personal vision of what a true college football fan should be. After all if you're a college football fan you're part of a very exclusive and strict club, with rules defining how many games you must watch per year, what media entities you must hate, and what traditions you must uphold. These rules are very strict and if you don't adhere to them, dutch will kick you out of the club and banish you to a life of a "pedestrian fan"

 

[dutch91701]

It's all good

It's just weird that you'd paint anyone who isn't a staunch traditionalist as a pedestrian fan.

When the tradition is what makes the sport what it is, then I think it's fairly justified. My opinion, but that's where I'm coming from.

 

[dutch91701]

Casual fan, not hardcore fan, idk. Some other vague representation that he's created that doesn't fit with his personal vision of what a true college football fan should be. After all if you're a college football fan you're part of a very exclusive and strict club, with rules defining how many games you must watch per year, what media entities you must hate, and what traditions you must uphold. These rules are very strict and if you don't adhere to them, dutch will kick you out of the club and banish you to a life of a "pedestrian fan"

Finally someone gets it. I'm glad we're on the same page.

 

[Excel]

Ah those guys. The most important people in sports really. The passionate fan loves being able to show his passion and be surrounded by the equally passionate, they also long for their team to succeed and gain recognition, which inevitably brings droves of "pedestrians" or whatever you want to call them...people the passionate fan hates because they're new, casual, dumb and there for the party. Unfortunately those people drive programs from a revenue standpoint.

If you post regularly on a team's message board, especially for 3+ years like tschu, you probably aren't a "pedestrian". I'd venture to say that there are very few of those people here in general...now if NU goes on to win a few NCs in the coming years we may see more of those people. I've really come to the conclusion that they are one single group that just shift whenever a team starts winning...I mean, how many script A's did you see in 2006? Very few but they're everywhere now. Anyhow, no true Scotsman blah blah blah end ramble.

 

[California Husker]

LOL, it's always fun to wait for the first person who has no valid point so he goes straight to the "well we had slavery for 400 years" or "That sounds like the way they did it in Nazi Germany". Too funny. Brilliant response!

Except that was me MAKING FUN OF YOUR AWFUL LOGIC. And you didn't understand the joke. Which doesn't shock me at this point.

You sir, are the one who lacks understanding and any concept of how to form a logical argument. I usually won't waste my time with the likes of you but it was fun to watch you twist and contort unrelated "facts" and use absolute non sequiturs in a futile attempt to sound informed. You have used just about every major fallacy in your failed attempt to make sense. But that's fine. Just continue to take comfort in the "fact" that everyone else agrees with you; if not in reality, at least in your mind. Good day.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Are people who are against the idea of a playoff incapable of figuring out that there will never be a 9-7 team in the playoffs - or, adjusting for a 12 game schedule, a 7-5 team? We've already been over this once (at least).

First note that we already have a de facto 7 team playoff if you accept that at least three conference champions are getting in. Plus Notre Dame will probably never get in if we lose the last game against the USC/Stanford on Thanksgiving Saturday, ditto for the Big12 champ.

But in a de jure 8 team playoff, 5 spots are reserved for conference champs, so that would allow a 6-7 Ga Tech into the playoff.

At least they would have a winning record by the time they played for a national title.

 

[Redux]

Boise State and TCU and Cincinati all found out in 2009 the regular season is not a playoff. They had to settle for Rose and Sugar bowls even though they went undefeated. Non had the opportunity to even play for a National Championship. The playoff at least remedies this should two or more teams go undefeated. If we have a year like 2013 where you pick from a bunch of one loss teams yes someone will get left out and cry foul. Thats when strength of conference and schedule come in to play. This is not the final resolution but its progress.

The boWls are not sacred. The Belk bowl is not important to anyone. The teams that play in it dont even know what the point of the game is other than they get SWAG!. GOING 6-6 on the year isnt motivation to play in the Fight Hunger bowl. 6-7 , who cares? We got our swag. The University MAYBE broke even when its all said and done.

The important bowls will still be important. If tOSU wins the Rose Bowl but loses to Alabam in the Championshio at least they won a Rose Bowl. So saying it isnt final enough is not a good argument. If you want to go back to the poll system you are stuck in the 70's and need to come back into the world.

 

[BigRedBuster]

What do we lose?

A) 2 Bowl games, sort of. They'll still be played, but they'll be for bigger stakes.

B) ??

The uniqueness of college football, tradition, and meaningful regular season games (just watch, "they can still probably get into the playoffs" will be used multiple times this season). It's change that doesn't solve anything; change for the sake of change. You post definitively saying "all of the fans of the sport want playoffs". Really? How many of those fans wanted a playoff before ESPN told them they wanted it? Enjoy being a mouthpiece.

This type of comment is already friggen said. If a team like Alabama loses early, there are comments that if XYandZ teams also lose, then Alabama would be back in the picture. HELL...talk about a regular season not meaning anything when a team that loses in the regular season, doesn't even win it's division and it goes on to play in the NC game.

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, let me get this straight. People clamor for a time when we had a bunch of bowl games to reward players for a decent season by sending them to a vacation spot (along with the fans) to play one more game the really doesn't mean much. Two to three of those bowl games would be played on January 1st and some how, the media and coaches watch those games and decide who the best team is by their opinion.

They DON'T like a system where there are a bunch of bowl games to reward players for a decent season by sending them to a vacation spot (along with the fans) to play one more game that really doesn't mean much. Three games will then be played to decide on the field who wins the championship. To get into these three games could depend somewhat on the media and coach's opinions.

Now I get it......