2009 NCAA football thread!!

[transplant99]

The most salient points of the article, even if you disagree with his methodolgy of implementation are as follows...

It is why, according to a Sports Illustrated poll, 90 percent of fans don’t approve of the BCS.

Instead, it launched a clown-show website (playoffproblem.com) that claims there can’t be a playoff because college football is incapable of figuring out how one might work.

Sure, every other sports entity on the planet can do it, but we somehow can’t decide how many teams would be in it or where they’d play and so on? So stop asking.

This is a ploy designed to create gridlock. It’s based on the idea fans lack basic mental competency.

Playoffs aren't a terrible idea, but the ignoring the actual logistics of implementing them is why they'll never happen

Well sure...except the NCAA already has a football playoff system that deals with "logistical" nightmares.

[JayP]

[quote=transplant99;2193954]The most salient points of the article, even if you disagree with his methodolgy of implementation are as follows...

Well sure...except the NCAA already has a football playoff system that deals with "logistical" nightmares.

How many times have we been through this? 1-A and 1-AA football have completely different issues regarding the implementation of a playoff. As much as you like to think so, you can't simply ignore the money that's on the table now and the deep-rooted nature of the major bowls.

It's not surprising that people aren't happy with the BCS. But if that's the case, the logical step is to add a 4-team playoff or a plus one scenario. It's certainly not the "ignore the last 100 years of college football and copy March Madness" scenario described here.

[transplant99]

Why does the last 100 years of college football come into play???

Things change...in every facet of life, in every facet of sports, in every facet of business.

But no, not in college football...we need to stick to what has always been because...well...because...thats what we need to do.

Just a weak argument and one Fleischer would be proud of i suppose.

As much as you like to think so, you can't simply ignore the money that's on the table now and the deep-rooted nature of the major bowls.

And you simply ignore that both " the money" and the bowls can all be PART OF a playoff system and no, it is not logistically difficult to implement....it is only difficult to accept that change is needed at all.

The suits of the BCS are all old school conference guys who have only ONE thing on their agenda...their conferences. That does not pre-dispose itself to being good for the entire sport in any way, shape, or form. They are protecting what they believe is their god-given slice of the pie...and it is time it stopped. Its like internal investigations by police on police. What is the outcome 99% of the time? Nothing.

Change is never easy especially when those needed to help it happen are so ensconced in their duty to prevent it. That doesnt mean it couldn't or shouldn't happen and it definately doesnt mean that the current system is either equitable or the right thing because of friggin "tradition".

Of course i am just an "idiot" that is "detahced from reality" in my thinking, so just ignore my thoughts.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why does the last 100 years of college football come into play???

Things change...in every facet of life, in every facet of sports, in every facet of business.

Hmm, seems like someone needs to follow their own advice when you use ancient +/- to judge hockey players and call advanced stats "abortions".

But no, not in college football...we need to stick to what has always been because...well...because...thats what we need to do

I don't recall there being a National Championship Game 100 years ago. The BCS is the bowl system changing...and it can evolve even more. A plus one keeps the system intact and adds a playoff. A 16 team playoff destroys the system.

And you simply ignore that both " the money" and the bowls can all be PART OF a playoff system and no, it is not logistically difficult to implement....it is only difficult to accept that change is needed at all.

If the money was there like you claim it is the system would be in place already.

Of course i am just an "idiot" that is "detahced from reality" in my thinking, so just ignore my thoughts.

Two quotes I never said about you in this thread. Pat yourself on the back.

[nik-]

we obviously need a separate "College Football Playoff Discussion" thread

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why does the last 100 years of college football come into play???

Things change...in every facet of life, in every facet of sports, in every facet of business.

But no, not in college football...we need to stick to what has always been because...well...because...thats what we need to do.

Just a weak argument and one Fleischer would be proud of i suppose.



And you simply ignore that both " the money" and the bowls can all be PART OF a playoff system and no, it is not logistically difficult to implement....it is only difficult to accept that change is needed at all.

The suits of the BCS are all old school conference guys who have only ONE thing on their agenda...their conferences. That does not pre-dispose itself to being good for the entire sport in any way, shape, or form. They are protecting what they believe is their god-given slice of the pie...and it is time it stopped. Its like internal investigations by police on police. What is the outcome 99% of the time? Nothing.

Change is never easy especially when those needed to help it happen are so ensconced in their duty to prevent it. That doesnt mean it couldn't or shouldn't happen and it definately doesnt mean that the current system is either equitable or the right thing because of friggin "tradition".

Of course i am just an "idiot" that is "detahced from reality" in my thinking, so just ignore my thoughts.

Note the bolded section, I understand you don't like it, but it's the reality of the situation. Proposals that say 'well screw them then' are a waste of time, it's not how the world works and it's certainly not how big business works.

There's two choices here, keep pounding your head against that brick wall or accept the fact that a solution requires some actual working with the powers that be. Blowing the whole thing up and starting over isn't realistic, I'm not sure why that's difficult to comprehend.

I don't think Wetzel's idea is terrible, but it has plenty of flaws. The inclusion of Sun Belt and C-USA winners isn't going to fly, not if they're taking 1/11 of the revenue back to their conferences. The seeding as listed there isn't going to go over well either I'd imagine, the Big Ten champ as an 8 seed? Sorry, I don't see any current BCS conference signing on to something that allows their champ to be pushed beyond the top 6.

My biggest concerns remain the same as usual, regular season matchups between top teams lose a lot of value and teams not in the playoff mix become an afterthought. I know that I wouldn't be all that engrossed by watching Alabama-Florida if the only consequence is seeding. Do you think Tebow is crying his eyes out on the sidelines after that game? I like the fact that USC losing to Stanford ends their championship hopes, it makes those games matter. I'm an MSU fan and I don't much care that the basketball team has dropped 2 games and fallen from the top 2, it means nothing so I don't make the effort to watch every game. That's what makes college football different, and why I like it more than the NFL. IF it simply turns into an amateur version of the NFL I'll stick to watching the best athletes instead.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

we obviously need a separate "College Football Playoff Discussion" thread

Why? Does a few pages of playoff discussion confuse you in your quest to talk about Alabama?

[GirlySports]

Here's another argument to throw out there. Playoff supporters always point to Boise St.-Oklahoma as the greatest game ever. Would that game be so great if it were a Quarterfinal?

A) There's no way in hell Boise State risks a chance to go to the semifinals by going for 2 at the end.

B) Playoff matches sometimes tend to crafty, defensive affairs cause coaches are afraid to lose, whereas one bowl game is fun for teams to be as offensive as possible. Boise State played their best under no pressure. I think they shoot themselves in the foot it it's a QF.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Here's another argument to throw out there. Playoff supporters always point to Boise St.-Oklahoma as the greatest game ever. Would that game be so great if it were a Quarterfinal?

A) There's no way in hell Boise State risks a chance to go to the semifinals by going for 2 at the end.

B) Playoff matches sometimes tend to crafty, defensive affairs cause coaches are afraid to lose, whereas one bowl game is fun for teams to be as offensive as possible. Boise State played their best under no pressure. I think they shoot themselves in the foot it it's a QF.

Great post.

This seems to be a common tactic with the 'blow up the whole thing' argument, take all of the good things that have happened in the past and imply that a playoff will result in those happening over and over again, regardless of the blatant differences in the situations.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Why? Does a few pages of playoff discussion confuse you in your quest to talk about Alabama?

calm down. I've made what? .. a dozen posts in this thread?

The playoff discussion goes in a circle.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nik-

calm down. I've made what? .. a dozen posts in this thread?

The playoff discussion goes in a circle.

It's been a good discussion. We've found alot of common ground. I have anyways

[transplant99]

One thing amongst all the hand-wringing of the sheeple...

What is the harm of trying something, and if in fact it does not work/makes less money, then revert back to the tried and true??

This whole "it wont work because its never been tried" mentality is astounding to me.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by valo403

Great post.

This seems to be a common tactic with the 'blow up the whole thing' argument, take all of the good things that have happened in the past and imply that a playoff will result in those happening over and over again, regardless of the blatant differences in the situations.

Another common tactic is to take any minor gripe with NCAA football and assume adding a playoff (and not even specifying anymore details) will fix them all.

Look at this article from SI: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...html?eref=sihp

Here's some choice quotes:

On my way to the Cowboys Stadium parking lot after the Big 12 title game, I chatted with CBSSports.com's Gary Parrish about the BCS chaos we would have seen had officials not given Texas another second to kick a game-winning field goal. Parrish, whose primary beat is college basketball, couldn't believe that Texas quarterback Colt McCoy's pass hitting a stadium railing altered the fate of the national title matchup.

"What a stupid system," Parrish said. "So, because Jerry Jones decided to put a railing there instead of 50 feet further back, Texas gets to play for the national title instead of Cincinnati?"

Apparently that same '1 second left on the clock' scenario could never happen in the playoff semi-finals or finals.

Ken Goe of The Oregonian made an excellent point this week. The Ducks were foolish to schedule Boise State at the start of the season. They should have brought Western Kentucky or some other creampuff and rolled to an undefeated record for most of the season. Who knows? Maybe they would have beaten Stanford while trying to protect a national title run. One of these days, schools will learn that in the BCS era, scheduling tough out-of-conference games doesn't help anyone. That's yet another reason why the system stinks.

Ask Boise St. how much a creampuff schedule helps their National Title hopes. Apparently under a playoff scenario we'd see all these great non-conference games...or we'd see schedules like Boise St. because all you need to do is go 12-0 or 11-1 and you're punching your home-field ticket to the playoffs.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by transplant99

One thing amongst all the hand-wringing of the sheeple...

What is the harm of trying something, and if in fact it does not work/makes less money, then revert back to the tried and true??

This whole "it wont work because its never been tried" mentality is astounding to me.

Well, what's a more REALISTIC scenario?

1) Giving a 16-team playoff a shot, just because, and hoping that there's the option to revert back to the old system if it blows up.

2) Tweaking the current system and adding a plus one game, which really isn't a huge paradigm shift.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by nik-

calm down. I've made what? .. a dozen posts in this thread?

The playoff discussion goes in a circle.

As do most good debates. It's relevant to this thread. People don't have to reply if they don't want to discuss it, yet they keep replying.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by JayP

Ken Goe of The Oregonian made an excellent point this week. The Ducks were foolish to schedule Boise State at the start of the season. They should have brought Western Kentucky or some other creampuff and rolled to an undefeated record for most of the season. Who knows? Maybe they would have beaten Stanford while trying to protect a national title run. One of these days, schools will learn that in the BCS era, scheduling tough out-of-conference games doesn't help anyone. That's yet another reason why the system stinks.

I disagree with this line of thinking. Imagine if Oregon scheduled a creampuff out-of-conference (not playing Boise or Utah) and went undefeated. They'd still very likely finish third to Texas and Alabama, and then Oregon fans would be complaining that a stronger out-of-conference schedule could have put them into the BCS game.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I disagree with this line of thinking. Imagine if Oregon scheduled a creampuff out-of-conference (not playing Boise or Utah) and went undefeated. They'd still very likely finish third to Texas and Alabama, and then Oregon fans would be complaining that a stronger out-of-conference schedule could have put them into the BCS game.

You can only schedule a creampuff out of conference schedule if you start the year #1 or #2.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

You can only schedule a creampuff out of conference schedule if you start the year #1 or #2.

Even then a team ranked in the top 5 who knocks off a few good teams is likely to leapfrog you unless your conference schedule boosts you.

I don't get how a playoff will promote these big out of conference matchups, it doesn't make sense to risk a loss that could bump you to 9-3 at the end of the year when going 10-2 gives you a pretty good chance to make the playoffs. If I'm a coach in a playoff system I'm concerned about wins only, strength of schedule doesn't matter if you're among a few 2 loss teams.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by valo403

Even then a team ranked in the top 5 who knocks off a few good teams is likely to leapfrog you unless your conference schedule boosts you.

I don't get how a playoff will promote these big out of conference matchups, it doesn't make sense to risk a loss that could bump you to 9-3 at the end of the year when going 10-2 gives you a pretty good chance to make the playoffs. If I'm a coach in a playoff system I'm concerned about wins only, strength of schedule doesn't matter if you're among a few 2 loss teams.

Yeah and if they give automatic bids for conference winners than a team like Troy doesn't care about record so much. Just win the title game.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Yeah and if they give automatic bids for conference winners than a team like Troy doesn't care about record so much. Just win the title game.

Precisely why including the likes of Troy is asinine.