goemaw.com
TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: nicname on December 07, 2010, 05:33:28 PM
-
:Drool
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnicnameks.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fbracket.jpg%3Fw%3D620%26amp%3Bh%3D444&hash=45535d65529d9c14947a3cdc769e97d2abfd9f00)
-
Wow, count me out. Looks like the biggest pile of crap i've ever seen.
-
yeah, what a pos
-
Awful
-
Pretty much crap.
-
Thanks for the reminder that the BCS is the way to go. That garbage would drive me to watching the NHL.
-
:blush:
-
horrible
-
Who would rather watch that than all of the great, meaningful games we get under the current system like Washington vs. Nebraska, OU vs. UConn, and K-State vs. Syracuse?
-
While I'm sure that this was done just for fun, I hope that you all realize that there will NEVER be a playoff/tournament system in major college football. Ever.
Elvis will come back from the dead before a playoff happens.
-
If this means no GoDaddy.com Bowl then count me the eff out.
-
:barf:
-
Elvis faked his death.
-
I'm beginning to not like college football.
-
Where are the Huskers?
:ck:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnicnameks.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fbracket.jpg%3Fw%3D620%26amp%3Bh%3D444&hash=45535d65529d9c14947a3cdc769e97d2abfd9f00)
Is this to see who gets to face Notre Dame in the finals?
-
While I'm sure that this was done just for fun, I hope that you all realize that there will NEVER be a playoff/tournament system in major college football. Ever.
Elvis will come back from the dead before a playoff happens.
I could see a playoff if the NCAA went to 4 16-team super conferences. I would rather watch nicname's playoff than that, though.
-
This does look pretty terrible. This idea of the shitty conferences getting an automatic berth is stupid. That bracket is the best argument for an 8-team playoff I've seen.
-
Would never have witnessed birth of the Pinstripe.
-
would be the only thing to make me care about college football after the first week of December.
-
If they ever go to playoffs I'll probably just quit caring about college football all together. What a shitty idea. Luckily, it will never happen.
-
:love:
-
1 v 16 game is more enticing than any bowl outside BCS title :lol:
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of shitty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of shitty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
yeah. but no
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of shitty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
exactly. if you want a chance to win it all, just don't lose. (insert morons saying "but what about tcu?")
-
A +1 might work, but not a playoff.
-
2007/2008 LSU :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
2007/2008 LSU :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:ck:
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of shitty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
exactly. if you want a chance to win it all, just don't lose. (insert morons saying "but what about tcu?")
Or just be Nebraska, OU, LSU, or any other big time program that ESPN loves enough to place you into the game despite losing 1 or 2 games. KU had a better case to be in the national championship in 2007/2008 than LSU.
-
Guys, I think Stanford should take that bracket and :cheese:
-
always love the "ESPN did this, ESPN did that" stuff
love it
you know who DGAF and won't make a playoff system? The NCAA. They don't even name/acknowledge a football national championship in the FBS.
-
always love the "ESPN did this, ESPN did that" stuff
love it
you know who DGAF and won't make a playoff system? The NCAA. They don't even name/acknowledge a football national championship in the FBS.
why should they? there is none. :dunno:
-
The only thing that would make this bracket better would be to eliminate the 4 at-large teams and just have a 12 team playoff with first round byes for the top 4 seeds. We don't want to diminish the importance of the regular season here guys, GMAFB.
-
Elvis faked his death.
That was Jim Morrison, foo'.
-
I love how most of the posters on this board would rather support this crap (http://footballbowlassociation.com/bowls/ad.php?gclid=CPfk6c_43KUCFQNrKgodLmNn5A) than see an actual national champion determined by performance on the field.
-
I love how most of the posters on this board would rather support this crap (http://footballbowlassociation.com/bowls/ad.php?gclid=CPfk6c_43KUCFQNrKgodLmNn5A) than see an actual national champion determined by performance on the field.
you aren't helping dumbfucker
-
I love how most of the posters on this board would rather support this crap (http://footballbowlassociation.com/bowls/ad.php?gclid=CPfk6c_43KUCFQNrKgodLmNn5A) than see an actual national champion determined by performance on the field.
you aren't helping dumbfucker
Not helping with what? You do realize that convincing steve dave, OK_Cat, and the gang that a playoff is better than the bowl system won't make it happen, right?
-
I love how most of the posters on this board would rather support this crap (http://footballbowlassociation.com/bowls/ad.php?gclid=CPfk6c_43KUCFQNrKgodLmNn5A) than see an actual national champion determined by performance on the field.
you aren't helping dumbfucker
Not helping with what? You do realize that convincing steve dave, OK_Cat, and the gang that a playoff is better than the bowl system won't make it happen, right?
right
-
16 is overkill for football. Keep it 4 or at most 6 (like conference playoffs in NFL, top 2 get byes)
Oregon vs TCU
Auburn vs Wisconsin
would be good enough, and most years there are 4 worthy teams at the end.
Unfortunately teams like Ohio St, OU(Texas on a good year), and SEC runner ups always finish fringe top 8 and they control college football, so if there ever was a playoff it would have to be 8-16 teams so all those schools could be included most years.
-
There are too many teams in D-1 football and not enough regular season games (plus no equality in difficulty of regular seasons) for there to be a just playoff field.
Yes, I believe the ncaa tournament is fun and stuff for fans, but it's a dumb way to decide a national champ.
-
really got me thinking now
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of cacty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
exactly. if you want a chance to win it all, just don't lose. (insert morons saying "but what about tcu?")
Or just be Nebraska, OU, LSU, or any other big time program that ESPN loves enough to place you into the game despite losing 1 or 2 games. KU had a better case to be in the national championship in 2007/2008 than LSU.
LSU is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) arguement because they destroyed OSU. OU was clearly the best team all year and lost a hiccup to a very good KSU team. Can't defend nubb other than they other good teams lost too so the reset button got hit.
determining a playoff field would be a complete clusterfuck and you'd have over 100 schools with absolutely meaningless seasons.
-
If you like pro wrasslin': http://collegefootballbelt.com/ (http://collegefootballbelt.com/)
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of cacty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
exactly. if you want a chance to win it all, just don't lose. (insert morons saying "but what about tcu?")
Or just be Nebraska, OU, LSU, or any other big time program that ESPN loves enough to place you into the game despite losing 1 or 2 games. KU had a better case to be in the national championship in 2007/2008 than LSU.
LSU is a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) arguement because they destroyed OSU. OU was clearly the best team all year and lost a hiccup to a very good KSU team. Can't defend nubb other than they other good teams lost too so the reset button got hit.
determining a playoff field would be a complete clusterfuck and you'd have over 100 schools with absolutely meaningless seasons.
really really making me think now. i'd have no problem w/ bowls if they just used this formula instead of the BCS. http://www.myteamisbetterthanyourteam.com/default.asp?winner=Kansas+St&loser=Alabama&year=2010&method=2
this way every game means something and no team would be playing a meaningless season. :woot:
-
why mess with a system where the 6th best/worst team in the worst bcs conference can still bring home $2 million in postseason cash and iPads?
-
why mess with a system where the 6th best/worst team in the worst bcs conference can still bring home $2 million in postseason cash and iPads?
regardless if the schools make or lose money from a bowl game it's a great vacation for the band and cheerleaders. if anybody deserves a free vaca it's thems.
-
determining a playoff field would be a complete clusterfuck and you'd have over 100 schools with absolutely meaningless seasons.
How do you figure? Win all of your games and you make the playoffs.
-
The problem with that bracket is the B10 gets 2 atlarge bids. That's where the cac is as far as I'm concerned. Boise loses a game it should have won if the kicker doesn't choke from 25 yards out, and they don't get into playoffs with 11-1? I mean, all year, people wanted to argue whether or not they deserved to be up there, the old "An SEC sched would murder them" bullshit. Let them in the playoffs and prove their worth.
-
The problem with that bracket is the B10 gets 2 atlarge bids. That's where the cac is as far as I'm concerned. Boise loses a game it should have won if the kicker doesn't choke from 25 yards out, and they don't get into playoffs with 11-1? I mean, all year, people wanted to argue whether or not they deserved to be up there, the old "An SEC sched would murder them" bullcac. Let them in the playoffs and prove their worth.
GMAFB WITH BOISE They blew their shot. IF a effing mid major wants in then they better schedule to get in and absolutely destroy their confrence.
-
The problem with that bracket is the B10 gets 2 atlarge bids. That's where the cac is as far as I'm concerned. Boise loses a game it should have won if the kicker doesn't choke from 25 yards out, and they don't get into playoffs with 11-1? I mean, all year, people wanted to argue whether or not they deserved to be up there, the old "An SEC sched would murder them" bullshit. Let them in the playoffs and prove their worth.
This is why it would be better to just get rid of all the at large teams. Win your conference or go play some crappy bowl game.
-
Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.
-
Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.
right on! once again the BCS matches the top 2 teams in the country. does that make it 13 or 14 years in a row now? i can't remember how long the BCS has been around. if we were still using the system before the BCS then we'd have Oregon playing Ohio St in the Rose and Auburn playing Virginia Tech in the Sugar. thank god for the BCS! and Tostitos!!!!!!!!!!!111111111!!!!!!!!!!! mmmmm salsa
-
determining a playoff field would be a complete clusterfuck and you'd have over 100 schools with absolutely meaningless seasons.
How do you figure? Win all of your games and you make the playoffs.
wait a second. now i might be leaning the other way. this is so confusing.
-
Once again, the BCS gets it right by having the two best teams play for the title. I don't give a flying eff about any of the other bowls.
is this an argument for or against a playoff? i guess if you hate college football it's an argument in favor of the BCS and the bowl system. :dunno:
-
You're really fired up about this, mcmw. Let's go grab a cup of joe at the Filling Station and talk about it. :users:
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
-
You're really fired up about this, mcmw. Let's go grab a cup of joe at the Filling Station and talk about it. :users:
your ducking of the question makes me think you aren't serious like i am. right now i am leaning toward playoff but could go bowl system. you are the one who says you don't give a 'flying eff' about bowls so i am thinking you might prefer playoff. in order to balance out my prejudices i would rather speak w/ someone who prefers the bowl system. thanks anyway.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.
Exactly why we need to stick with the bowls. The auto bids in the NCAA basketball tournament make that thing pretty much unwatchable.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull cac.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull cac. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullcac.
why not take the top 16 or top 8 teams ranked in the bcs and use the current bcs bowls as sites for the games? this makes more money than a crappy ou vs. uconn bowl game and provides a true national champion?
-
if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull cac.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull cac. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullcac.
why not take the top 16 or top 8 teams ranked in the bcs and use the current bcs bowls as sites for the games? this makes more money than a crappy ou vs. uconn bowl game and provides a true national champion?
There are not many fans who would be able to go to multiple bowl destinations in the same season. I think it would make more money to just give the higher seed a home game up until the championship game.
-
if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.
Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.
And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year. Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?
-
if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.
Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.
And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year. Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?
Yeah.
I don't really care to see a 16 team playoff. Give me 4 teams, and do a playoff from there.
-
if i've decided on one thing it's this: a playoff system using bowl destinations as neutral sites is dumber than the bowl system.
Yes, this is dumb. Do a bowl site for the champ game, but that's about it. Maybe (maybe) semis.
And ETP is right, unlike nearly every other sport, the BCS does get the Top 2 teams (at worst 2 of the top 3) every single year. Almost always see the best play the best in the title game. Really, what other sport can say that?
Yeah.
I don't really care to see a 16 team playoff. Give me 4 teams, and do a playoff from there.
I'm completely with you, I'd like to see a 4 team playoff as well.
-
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
-
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
-
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
but i really like watching meaningful, dramatic games (PLURAL) and the bowl system fails miserably at that. you get the one guaranteed great game at the expense of 3+ weekends of potential greatness.
my disdain for the bowl system is not rational. it mainly derives from a suspicion of tradition and love of the ncaa hoops tournament.
-
A playoff would be much more entertaining for the fans. That is far more important than getting the two programs with the best tradition and records on a field for a championship that the NCAA doesn't even recognize.
-
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
but i really like watching meaningful, dramatic games (PLURAL) and the bowl system fails miserably at that. you get the one guaranteed great game at the expense of 3+ weekends of potential greatness.
my disdain for the bowl system is not rational. it mainly derives from a suspicion of tradition and love of the ncaa hoops tournament.
True. To this point, I liked Mandel's thoughts from the other day.
The prevailing thought seems to be that the BCS conferences would never give up the automatic-qualifying status for conference champions. However, do the bowls hold any sway in BCS negotiations? At this point, the Orange Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl are probably tired of hosting subpar teams from the Big East and ACC.
-- James, Ann Arbor
You'd be surprised by how little sway the bowls have when it comes to BCS decisions. Their execs are in the room for meetings. They make suggestions. They're in constant contact with their respective conference partners. But for the most part the conferences dictate almost all BCS policy, and the bowls themselves hold little leverage. What are they going to do, drop out and pass up the opportunity to host the national championship game?
But something needs to be done to give the BCS games more flexibility with their matchups. This year, the Sugar Bowl was the only one of the four with any freedom in its selections. The Rose Bowl was obligated to take TCU. The Orange Bowl was obligated to take either Stanford (since it finished in the top four) or Big East champ Connecticut. The Fiesta Bowl had to take whichever one was left. Meanwhile the Gator Bowl, which offers one-fourth the payout of a BCS game, had its choice of at least two SEC teams (Mississippi State and Tennessee) and three Big Ten teams (Michigan, Iowa and Northwestern), chose the Bulldogs and Wolverines and will likely sell out for the second straight year. Think the Oklahoma-UConn Fiesta Bowl will sell out? Think that bowl would voluntarily choose that matchup?
My proposal: Eliminate automatic bids altogether. Are they really necessary at this point? The Big Ten and SEC are going to get their two berths most years regardless. The Pac-10 will always have the Rose Bowl. The Fiesta Bowl would continue its Big 12 affiliation (or if not, the Orange Bowl would gladly step in) and perhaps even start an informal alliance with the Mountain West and BYU. The only leagues in danger some years would be the ACC and Big East, but remember that in four of the five seasons prior to this one the Big East's champ was ranked in the top 10. Those teams all would have been selected regardless of AQ status.
I'd also suggest lifting the limit on teams per conference. And structuring the revenue distribution so no one goes broke, just as Notre Dame and the five non-AQ leagues are assured a share every year now regardless of whether they qualify a team. The same would hold true if the Big East didn't send a team one year -- it wouldn't get a full share, but it wouldn't be left for broke, either.
Under this system, and assuming roughly the same selection order, we could have had the following more logical, enticing pairings this year:
Rose: 11-1 Wisconsin vs. 11-1 Stanford
Fiesta: 11-2 Oklahoma vs. 12-0 TCU
Sugar: 11-1 Ohio State vs. 10-2 Arkansas
Orange: 11-2 Virginia Tech vs. 10-2 LSU
About the only negative is that Michigan State still gets shafted. The Orange would probably go for the closer team with the more ravenous fan base. But that's also kind of the point: The bowls would go back to being able to create the matchups they prefer rather than being pigeonholed by BCS constraints.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/12/08/bcs-process/index.html#ixzz17d4HkFki
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
-
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
This is an argument that I can live with.
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.
I see where you're going, NU in the title game was really dumb. Its gotten better though. JMHO.
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.
Exactly why we need to stick with the bowls. The auto bids in the NCAA basketball tournament make that thing pretty much unwatchable.
Yeah the whole 6-10 games over the first 2 days where an AQ gets blown out really ruins a three week 64 game tournament. Good call.
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
This is an argument that I can live with.
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.
I see where you're going, NU in the title game was really dumb. Its gotten better though. JMHO.
It can happen again, its not like the system has changed since then. A team that didn't win it's conference or who are co-champs will party for the BCS title at least once every five years.
-
It can happen again, its not like the system has changed since then. A team that didn't win it's conference or who are co-champs will party for the BCS title at least once every five years.
Fair enough.
I'm not against a playoff, but I don't think the BCS is as terrible as most.
I'd go for a 4 or 8 team playoff.
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
This is an argument that I can live with.
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.
I see where you're going, NU in the title game was really dumb. Its gotten better though. JMHO.
It can happen again, its not like the system has changed since then. A team that didn't win it's conference or who are co-champs will party for the BCS title at least once every five years.
Are you against a top 4 BCS team playoff?
-
Just accept that a sport with 120 teams, 12 regular season games, no regular season standards and no overseeing body isn't going to end up with a fair "national champion", regardless of the system.
The tournament in basketball is as silly a method of determining a national champion as the BCS but it's given a pass because bracket pools are fun.
NFL is the standard-bearer for determining a champ. 32 teams whittled down to 12 by way of a standardized 16 game regular season where regular season success earns teams significant advantages in the playoff/tournament. And there's probably going to be even more regular season games soon.
If KSU had won out in 1998, I wouldn't have given a crap if we were the 3rd undefeated team and left out of the "national championship" game. We'd have gotten whatever 'ship is given out by the media or whatever isn't bound by the BCS, and we'd all know we'd won a national championship. I think most people who demand a big playoff aren't really vested in a team of their own and just want a basketball tournament fan experience.
-
I think most people who demand a big playoff aren't really vested in a team of their own and just want a basketball tournament fan experience.
This. I think people will be expecting another basketball tournament and it won't be anything like that. Not to say that it wouldn't be fun to watch, but IMO it wouldn't be a lot better than good BCS bowl match-ups (admittedly, they aren't great this year). Part of what makes the NCAA tournament great is the first weekend, and football simply won't provide that type of drama ever b/c its simply a different sport AND you won't have 16 games going on all on one day with Cinderellas, etc..
-
I think most people who demand a big playoff aren't really vested in a team of their own and just want a basketball tournament fan experience.
This. I think people will be expecting another basketball tournament and it won't be anything like that. Not to say that it wouldn't be fun to watch, but IMO it wouldn't be a lot better than good BCS bowl match-ups (admittedly, they aren't great this year). Part of what makes the NCAA tournament great is the first weekend, and football simply won't provide that type of drama ever b/c its simply a different sport AND you won't have 16 games going on all on one day with Cinderellas, etc..
I think they would be expecting something along the lines of the NFL playoffs. It would be similar to watching the BCS bowls three weekends in a row, only the teams would actually have something on the line. From a fan entertainment perspective, I can't think of a single way the current system would be better.
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/22987/beebe-delany-talk-expansion-playoff
-
When it looked like there might be a lockout/strike next year in the NFL, I could see a scenario where the money for a CFB would have been so damn big nobody could turn it down.
It will take something enormous like a NFL stoppage for a playoff to happen.
-
Part of what makes the NCAA tournament great is the first weekend, and football simply won't provide that type of drama ever b/c its simply a different sport AND you won't have 16 games going on all on one day with Cinderellas, etc..
the thing that makes the NCAA tournament great is that every game means something. the winner moves on the loser goes home. and it's what would make a football playoff great.
bowls are boring as eff because half the teams don't give a crap about what happens
BCS is nice because most of the time you get 1 vs 2. but the rest of it is worthless. UCONN vs TCU matchup on day 1 of the tournament is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than UCONN vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl.
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
This is an argument that I can live with.
Well, since the BCS completely nails it every single season I'm pretty much fine with the perfect BCS the way we have it.
True. But since in the worst year they might get 2 of the top 3 instead of the top 2 (at worst), I could see letting 4 in to make sure. Could be fun; but the top 2 every year is good for college football.
Uh in the worst years they get a team who isn't even the best team in their own conference or worst, their own division.
I see where you're going, NU in the title game was really dumb. Its gotten better though. JMHO.
It can happen again, its not like the system has changed since then. A team that didn't win it's conference or who are co-champs will party for the BCS title at least once every five years.
Are you against a top 4 BCS team playoff?
Yes. I am in favor of the bcs being used to determine potential at-large teams for a playoff though. Right now the bcs champion is too dependant on pre-season polls & voter bias.
8 team playoff, the 6 best conference champs as determined by the bcs and two at-large teams also determined by the bcs. With the system I'm proposing TCU would get a conference champ spot over UCONN & then the two best at large squads, Stanford & Ohio State. You have the best of the best. The talking point about an invalidated regular season is triple dumb. Oregon & Auburn are the best in their conferences we have no idea howe well they stack up against the country. College football is too regional to determine a national champion the way we do right now.
-
the thing that makes the NCAA tournament great is that every game means something. the winner moves on the loser goes home. and it's what would make a football playoff great.
bowls are boring as eff because half the teams don't give a cac about what happens
BCS is nice because most of the time you get 1 vs 2. but the rest of it is worthless. UCONN vs TCU matchup on day 1 of the tournament is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than UCONN vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl.
Agree in part to the every game means something, but it won't be close to the drama of basketball unless your team is playing.
I mean, I like to watch the NFL playoffs, but its not near like the NCAA tournament. I don't go out of my way to watch NFL playoff games unless a team I like is playing. NCAA football playoffs may be a little better, but not much. Its only when it gets to the AFC/NFC Champ games/Super Bowl that I'm going to make sure I watch. But for basketball, I won't miss the opening two days of games for anything. The opening day of 4 or 8 games for football (and they'd never put more than 4 games on anyway for TV purposes) would never be like that. JMHO.
-
From a fan entertainment perspective, I can't think of a single way the current system would be better.
If the goal is to determine a national champion, then the current system is better in that the championship game is Oregon vs. Auburn and there's no chance that their perfect regular seasons will be rendered worthless by some fluke in a playoff or having to beat a team again that they've already beaten. Yeah, there's flaws like TCU being excluded and there still being subjectivity involved, but about as good as can be done given how many teams there are and a lack of any objective way of getting them down to 4, 8, etc.
If the goal is entertainment for fans, why not have a playoff within a reality show or something? :dunno:
College football is too regional to determine a national champion the way we do right now.
Always will be, unless 64-team, 4-superconference thing goes down.
-
the thing that makes the NCAA tournament great is that every game means something. the winner moves on the loser goes home. and it's what would make a football playoff great.
bowls are boring as eff because half the teams don't give a cac about what happens
BCS is nice because most of the time you get 1 vs 2. but the rest of it is worthless. UCONN vs TCU matchup on day 1 of the tournament is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than UCONN vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl.
Agree in part to the every game means something, but it won't be close to the drama of basketball unless your team is playing.
I mean, I like to watch the NFL playoffs, but its not near like the NCAA tournament. I don't go out of my way to watch NFL playoff games unless a team I like is playing. NCAA football playoffs may be a little better, but not much. Its only when it gets to the AFC/NFC Champ games/Super Bowl that I'm going to make sure I watch. But for basketball, I won't miss the opening two days of games for anything. The opening day of 4 or 8 games for football (and they'd never put more than 4 games on anyway for TV purposes) would never be like that. JMHO.
Do you watch the bowl games regardless of whether or not a team you like is playing? I know I don't.
-
the thing that makes the NCAA tournament great is that every game means something. the winner moves on the loser goes home. and it's what would make a football playoff great.
bowls are boring as eff because half the teams don't give a cac about what happens
BCS is nice because most of the time you get 1 vs 2. but the rest of it is worthless. UCONN vs TCU matchup on day 1 of the tournament is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than UCONN vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl.
Agree in part to the every game means something, but it won't be close to the drama of basketball unless your team is playing.
I mean, I like to watch the NFL playoffs, but its not near like the NCAA tournament. I don't go out of my way to watch NFL playoff games unless a team I like is playing. NCAA football playoffs may be a little better, but not much. Its only when it gets to the AFC/NFC Champ games/Super Bowl that I'm going to make sure I watch. But for basketball, I won't miss the opening two days of games for anything. The opening day of 4 or 8 games for football (and they'd never put more than 4 games on anyway for TV purposes) would never be like that. JMHO.
Do you watch the bowl games regardless of whether or not a team you like is playing? I know I don't.
Honestly, I used to more than I do now. When Jan 1 used to have most of the good bowl games it was an event and it was a fun day to watch football. Now that the bowls are all spread out, no I don't watch them all at all.
If they did 8 teams with the opening 4 games on one day (on college campuses IMO), it would make for a feel more like when Jan 1 was THE day to watch good bowl games, so they would have that going for them. I would be for that.
-
the thing that makes the NCAA tournament great is that every game means something. the winner moves on the loser goes home. and it's what would make a football playoff great.
bowls are boring as eff because half the teams don't give a cac about what happens
BCS is nice because most of the time you get 1 vs 2. but the rest of it is worthless. UCONN vs TCU matchup on day 1 of the tournament is infinitely more interesting and meaningful than UCONN vs OU in the Fiesta Bowl.
Agree in part to the every game means something, but it won't be close to the drama of basketball unless your team is playing.
I mean, I like to watch the NFL playoffs, but its not near like the NCAA tournament. I don't go out of my way to watch NFL playoff games unless a team I like is playing. NCAA football playoffs may be a little better, but not much. Its only when it gets to the AFC/NFC Champ games/Super Bowl that I'm going to make sure I watch. But for basketball, I won't miss the opening two days of games for anything. The opening day of 4 or 8 games for football (and they'd never put more than 4 games on anyway for TV purposes) would never be like that. JMHO.
Do you watch the bowl games regardless of whether or not a team you like is playing? I know I don't.
Honestly, I used to more than I do now. When Jan 1 used to have most of the good bowl games it was an event and it was a fun day to watch football. Now that the bowls are all spread out, no I don't watch them all at all.
If they did 8 teams with the opening 4 games on one day (on college campuses IMO), it would make for a feel more like when Jan 1 was THE day to watch good bowl games, so they would have that going for them. I would be for that.
Exactly. I would eat that up as well. The next weekend wouldn't be quite as amazing, but it would still be awesome.
-
I just think you have to be careful adding too many teams, and I don't think the conferences would agree to too many anyway. I really believe you've got to keep a bowl system of some sort. To me K-State is living proof that moving up through minor/medium bowl games can build a program, granted I think there are too many bowl games now.
I could see a system where the Sat. before January 1st (a week out, more when Jan 1 is in the middle of the week) you have the 4 opening games on college campuses as sort of the opening of medium or better bowl week. You would have some minor bowls like for the Sun Belt, MAC level teams before that. Then in between, ESPN still has their bowl week with decent games (Holiday Level) for teams that didn't make the 8 team playoff. Then January 1st would be for a couple top level bowl games (teams that finished 9-12ish could match-up) at former BCS sites, and then the semi finals later that day at the other 2 former BCS sites. Then a week later you have the Championship game at one of those sites. The current 4 big bowls rotate the two "big/leftover" bowl games and semis with one of those 4 getting the Champ game a week later, similar to what they do now. This keeps a bit of the flavor of the bowl system, but adds a legitimate playoff system.
:2cents:
-
Actually, I wouldn't mind the idea of an 8- or 16-team playoff in January utilizing the BCS and other major bowls, but we could also keep the December bowls by making them "reward" games for teams that had good seasons but did not make the playoffs. It would be kind of like the NIT for underachieving but nonetheless solid teams.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-12-09-column09_ST2_N.htm
-
I guess what I don't get is why people care if #1 plays #2 in the championship game. Nobody bitches about this in other sports, and as long as #1 and #2 are given a chance to get there, what's the problem?
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-12-09-column09_ST2_N.htm
Well, if the executive director of the BCS thinks they got it right yet again, the system must be flawless!
-
Let the government remove tax exempt status from the bowls and we'll see what happens. I think an 8 team playoff would be perfect-
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=11701069&page=3
-
I guess what I don't get is why people care if #1 plays #2 in the championship game. Nobody bitches about this in other sports, and as long as #1 and #2 are given a chance to get there, what's the problem?
#1 and #2 gets the entire season to prove they belong there. While I don't always agree with how they decide their #1 and #2 teams, I think claiming that you actually have the two best teams in your sport play for the national title as a reward for having the best seasons is a valid talking point. This doesn't mean that sports where underdogs can make it to and win a championship are bad, its just different and what the BCS is attempting to do and makes it unique.
BTW, if I had to choose I'd choose an 8 team play-off as well, but I do like trying to see this argument from both sides.
-
The only people that really want a playoff are fans of cacty teams. If you are good every game is a playoff game.
The 16th team on this list will/would get absolutely pouned by Auburn...and you know it.
-
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/
-
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/
what an ass. if he and the rest of the AQ leagues really feel that way why don't they just form their own division made up of only their conferences?
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/22987/beebe-delany-talk-expansion-playoff
the expanded tournament has devalued the regular season.
lie.
an expanded tournament has allowed (or forced) more meaningful and intriguing non conference matchups.
-
The fan entertainment playoff talking point holds much more water than the best teams talking point.
This
And the best argument against a playoff is how it would affect students and fans that regularly travel to bowl games. If we somehow end up in this hypothetical 16 team playoff at some point, are you gonna wanna travel to Boise rough ridin' Idaho in December to watch the Cats play on the smurf turf in the first round? What if they lose that game and you didn't go. You just mumped out of a postseason bowl trip to AZ or CA.
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/22987/beebe-delany-talk-expansion-playoff
the expanded tournament has devalued the regular season.
lie.
an expanded tournament has allowed (or forced) more meaningful and intriguing non conference matchups.
How so?
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/22987/beebe-delany-talk-expansion-playoff
the expanded tournament has devalued the regular season.
lie.
an expanded tournament has allowed (or forced) more meaningful and intriguing non conference matchups.
lol, wut?
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.
Exactly why we need to stick with the bowls. The auto bids in the NCAA basketball tournament make that thing pretty much unwatchable.
Yeah the whole 6-10 games over the first 2 days where an AQ gets blown out really ruins a three week 64 game tournament. Good call.
Guess I should have used the italics. Figured I was laying it on heavy enough. :users:
-
Guys, I know I've said this before, but before I was a goEMAW.com moderator, I taught high school math. And you want to talk pressure? Moderating a message board isn't pressure. Teaching math to kids whose primary concern is the senior prom, that's pressure. What was I talking about? Yeah, math. Look, I can count to 120. There's no system that's going to take 120 teams and using 12 days a year, which I'd think anyone could put out effort for 12 days in a single year, there's no way playoff or not to get a champion out of that. Makes me sick to my stomach.
-
I guess what I don't get is why people care if #1 plays #2 in the championship game. Nobody bitches about this in other sports, and as long as #1 and #2 are given a chance to get there, what's the problem?
#1 and #2 gets the entire season to prove they belong there. While I don't always agree with how they decide their #1 and #2 teams, I think claiming that you actually have the two best teams in your sport play for the national title as a reward for having the best seasons is a valid talking point. This doesn't mean that sports where underdogs can make it to and win a championship are bad, its just different and what the BCS is attempting to do and makes it unique.
BTW, if I had to choose I'd choose an 8 team play-off as well, but I do like trying to see this argument from both sides.
The problem is that #1 and #2 aren't necessarily the 2 best teams. Right now, it's a beauty contest. The sample size is simply too small, the sport too regionalized (as MIR pointed out), for that to be the case year-in and year-out. Ironically, college basketball, with its larger sample size providing observers with more information on which to base their rankings, would be a better fit for the BCS system, and college football would be a better fit for a tournament, if the goal is really to provide the best teams in the country with an opportunity to meet and decide a champion on the field. (And some of the debate here depends on what "best" means: team playing the best at the end of the year? Team with the most wins? Team with the best resume? Team to have lost last?)
The BCS "accomplishes its goal" each year because it's designed to pair the #1 and #2 BCS teams in one game. The #1 and #2 BCS teams are determined by the BCS system. It's circular logic. Of course it's going to accomplish its goal.
I recommend reading "Death to the BCS" for anyone who hasn't. I don't agree with all of it, but they do set forth a compelling argument for why a 16-team playoff is the way to go.
-
Guys, I know I've said this before, but before I was a goEMAW.com moderator, I taught high school math. And you want to talk pressure? Moderating a message board isn't pressure. Teaching math to kids whose primary concern is the senior prom, that's pressure. What was I talking about? Yeah, math. Look, I can count to 120. There's no system that's going to take 120 teams and using 12 days a year, which I'd think anyone could put out effort for 12 days in a single year, there's no way playoff or not to get a champion out of that. Makes me sick to my stomach.
It is pretty easy to come up with a playoff system that fairly crowns a national champion. First, you have to agree that the best team in the country will be the best team in its conference. The regular season crowns a conference champ in every conference, via a round robin tournament or a championship game. These 12 conference champs can then be seeded and play each other at the campus of the higher seed. The top 4 teams would get a first round bye. The championship game would be at a neutral site.
Would this playoff be more fun to watch than a playoff with just the top 8 BCS teams? No, but this playoff would actually improve college football's regular season, which is already the best regular season out of any sport.
-
Guys, I know I've said this before, but before I was a goEMAW.com moderator, I taught high school math. And you want to talk pressure? Moderating a message board isn't pressure. Teaching math to kids whose primary concern is the senior prom, that's pressure. What was I talking about? Yeah, math. Look, I can count to 120. There's no system that's going to take 120 teams and using 12 days a year, which I'd think anyone could put out effort for 12 days in a single year, there's no way playoff or not to get a champion out of that. Makes me sick to my stomach.
It is pretty easy to come up with a playoff system that fairly crowns a national champion. First, you have to agree that the best team in the country will be the best team in its conference. The regular season crowns a conference champ in every conference, via a round robin tournament or a championship game. These 12 conference champs can then be seeded and play each other at the campus of the higher seed. The top 4 teams would get a first round bye. The championship game would be at a neutral site.
Would this playoff be more fun to watch than a playoff with just the top 8 BCS teams? No, but this playoff would actually improve college football's regular season, which is already the best regular season out of any sport.
So OOC games are irrelevant or cease to exist, and all conferences get an equal amount of teams in (1) whether they're the SEC or whatever T42YS has been pining for his TSTATEOs to be invited to?
Your plan might work when applied to 4 16-team conferences in a self-contained league.
-
Guys, I know I've said this before, but before I was a goEMAW.com moderator, I taught high school math. And you want to talk pressure? Moderating a message board isn't pressure. Teaching math to kids whose primary concern is the senior prom, that's pressure. What was I talking about? Yeah, math. Look, I can count to 120. There's no system that's going to take 120 teams and using 12 days a year, which I'd think anyone could put out effort for 12 days in a single year, there's no way playoff or not to get a champion out of that. Makes me sick to my stomach.
It is pretty easy to come up with a playoff system that fairly crowns a national champion. First, you have to agree that the best team in the country will be the best team in its conference. The regular season crowns a conference champ in every conference, via a round robin tournament or a championship game. These 12 conference champs can then be seeded and play each other at the campus of the higher seed. The top 4 teams would get a first round bye. The championship game would be at a neutral site.
Would this playoff be more fun to watch than a playoff with just the top 8 BCS teams? No, but this playoff would actually improve college football's regular season, which is already the best regular season out of any sport.
So OOC games are irrelevant or cease to exist, and all conferences get an equal amount of teams in (1) whether they're the SEC or whatever T42YS has been pining for his TSTATEOs to be invited to?
Your plan might work when applied to 4 16-team conferences in a self-contained league.
OOC games are only irrelevant if the schools don't care if they get a first round bye. OOC games would be just as relevant as they are now.
-
http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/22987/beebe-delany-talk-expansion-playoff
the expanded tournament has devalued the regular season.
lie.
an expanded tournament has allowed (or forced) more meaningful and intriguing non conference matchups.
How so?
maybe it's just the nature of the tournament, expanded or not. college hoops non con games are ridiculously more entertaining than college football's. the reason for this is because top level teams in basketball will actually play each other in the non con. this occurrence is nonexistent in football
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
doubtful
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
If K-State were undefeated this year, we would be on our way to the Fiesta Bowl to play UConn. I'm pretty sure that this argument would still be happening.
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
If K-State were undefeated this year, we would be on our way to the Fiesta Bowl to play UConn. I'm pretty sure that this argument would still be happening.
link?
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
If K-State were undefeated this year, we would be on our way to the Fiesta Bowl to play UConn. I'm pretty sure that this argument would still be happening.
link?
Oregon and Auburn generate more money than K-State, therefore they get all tiebreakers. This isn't that hard.
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
If K-State were undefeated this year, we would be on our way to the Fiesta Bowl to play UConn. I'm pretty sure that this argument would still be happening.
link?
Oregon and Auburn generate more money than K-State, therefore they get all tiebreakers. This isn't that hard.
you're trying way too hard to find a conspiracy theory.
for the sake of argument, if kstate were undefeated, we'd be somewhere between 1-3. :ck:
-
I want a +1 Championship game, or a tournament involving the top BCS ranked teams. No at large bull crap.
The top BCS ranked teams is at large bull crap. I think you are saying you don't want to reward the conference champions (basically what the whole season sets out to determine) with automatic bids.
How hard is it to take the top 16 teams instead of having UCONN, UCF, FIU, etc. The OP is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if he wants to see that nonsensical bullshit.
Exactly why we need to stick with the bowls. The auto bids in the NCAA basketball tournament make that thing pretty much unwatchable.
Yeah the whole 6-10 games over the first 2 days where an AQ gets blown out really ruins a three week 64 game tournament. Good call.
Guess I should have used the italics. Figured I was laying it on heavy enough. :users:
My bad, its hard to tell who's being sarcastic with regards to this topic
-
the only reason we are even having this argument is because we suck ass.
If K-State were undefeated this year, we would be on our way to the Fiesta Bowl to play UConn. I'm pretty sure that this argument would still be happening.
not true. i heard that every week is a playoff game and if you don't lose you are guaranteed to make it to the BCS championship bowl game. there are multiple links all over the interwebz for this. just google it.
-
maybe it's just the nature of the tournament, expanded or not. college hoops non con games are ridiculously more entertaining than college football's. the reason for this is because top level teams in basketball will actually play each other in the non con. this occurrence is nonexistent in football
Yes, but most of those games have nothing to do with the tournament. There are more quality OOC basketball games for a couple reasons; a) the NCAA did away with the rule that only allowed teams to play in "exempt tournaments" once every 4 years. Now you can play in them every year, and more often than not these match-ups happen in those tournaments on neutral floors; like the Duke game this year. b) ESPN/TV creates league to league match-ups like the Big 12/Pac 10 Challenge. This gets more games on home floors, which is nice, but a lot of good match-ups wouldn't happen without these deals. If you take these two things away, the number of good match-ups would be comparable to what you see in football. And if anything, football has gone the opposite direction, getting rid of some of the neutral site "preseason" games, like when K-State played Iowa in the BCA game in Arrowhead.
-
We should give the BCS some type of award for absolutely nailing the national championship game every year. They are batting 1.000 and probably will forever.
-
the bcs never promised a match up between the top two teams, just a match up between a #1 and a #2. in general, it was never intended to be perfect, just intended to remove a major flaw in the former system.it did that. if at the outset you thought it would be as good as you think a playoff would be and are now surprised, you didn't think things through very far.
-
maybe it's just the nature of the tournament, expanded or not. college hoops non con games are ridiculously more entertaining than college football's. the reason for this is because top level teams in basketball will actually play each other in the non con. this occurrence is nonexistent in football
Yes, but most of those games have nothing to do with the tournament. There are more quality OOC basketball games for a couple reasons; a) the NCAA did away with the rule that only allowed teams to play in "exempt tournaments" once every 4 years. Now you can play in them every year, and more often than not these match-ups happen in those tournaments on neutral floors; like the Duke game this year. b) ESPN/TV creates league to league match-ups like the Big 12/Pac 10 Challenge. This gets more games on home floors, which is nice, but a lot of good match-ups wouldn't happen without these deals. If you take these two things away, the number of good match-ups would be comparable to what you see in football. And if anything, football has gone the opposite direction, getting rid of some of the neutral site "preseason" games, like when K-State played Iowa in the BCA game in Arrowhead.
this has everything to do with college football coaches being absolutely terrified of losing a game in the non con and being disqualified from the BCS championship bowl game. unless you're one of the selected few in college football you aren't going to be considered for the BCS championship bowl game unless you are undefeated.
if there was a tournament we'd have coaches not afraid of being challenged in the non con and we'd have a college non con worth watching.
-
We should give the BCS some type of award for absolutely nailing the national championship game every year. They are batting 1.000 and probably will forever.
they are doing an exceptional job matching up #1 and #2 in the BCS rankings. plaudits
it says something about college football that it took as long as it did for the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) ass jockeys to get even this far. they deserve some credit for it.
:emawkid:
-
We should give the BCS some type of award for absolutely nailing the national championship game every year. They are batting 1.000 and probably will forever.
agreed. these guys just roast suckers every season. "hey boise, wanna play for the bcs title? PSYCH!"
-
you know what's lamer than any method for determining a national champion? someone caring a lot about it.
-
you know what's lamer than any method for determining a national champion? someone caring a lot about it.
basically right except there never has been an ncaa division 1A (FBS) national champion. i think it would be cool if they started this tradition. i like college football. how about you guys?