This is a must read for those who are grumpy about the current BCS system.
https://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_final_four_gains_steam_120811
This is a must read for those who are grumpy about the current BCS system.
https://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_final_four_gains_steam_120811
This is a must read for those who are grumpy about the current BCS system.
https://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_final_four_gains_steam_120811
In my opinion this format would be an improvement but it would not end widespread controversy.
This year for example would have #4 Stanford making the tournament while #5 Oregon would not. Don't forget not only are the Ducks PAC 12 Champions,but they also beat Stanford rather handily earlier this season.
I think that scenario would be a far worse travesty than Oklahoma State's exclusion this year.
In my opinion this format would be an improvement but it would not end widespread controversy.
This year for example would have #4 Stanford making the tournament while #5 Oregon would not. Don't forget not only are the Ducks PAC 12 Champions,but they also beat Stanford rather handily earlier this season.
I think that scenario would be a far worse travesty than Oklahoma State's exclusion this year.
In my opinion this format would be an improvement but it would not end widespread controversy.
This year for example would have #4 Stanford making the tournament while #5 Oregon would not. Don't forget not only are the Ducks PAC 12 Champions,but they also beat Stanford rather handily earlier this season.
I think that scenario would be a far worse travesty than Oklahoma State's exclusion this year.
That statement would imply that I think that OK.State's exclusion is indeed a travesty,which I do not!
Bunny - I agree but there is so little common critera available to compare these teams that even with an extra loss (to the #1 team) it's hard to definitively say that Oregon is not a more deserving football team than Stanford given that the Ducks beat them head up and won their conference championship.
In my opinion this format would be an improvement but it would not end widespread controversy.
This year for example would have #4 Stanford making the tournament while #5 Oregon would not. Don't forget not only are the Ducks PAC 12 Champions,but they also beat Stanford rather handily earlier this season.
I think that scenario would be a far worse travesty than Oklahoma State's exclusion this year.
That statement would imply that I think that OK.State's exclusion is indeed a travesty,which I do not!
Bunny - I agree but there is so little common critera available to compare these teams that even with an extra loss (to the #1 team) it's hard to definitively say that Oregon is not a more deserving football team than Stanford given that the Ducks beat them head up and won their conference championship.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
One way to cut down on potential controversy would be to adopt a rule that stated;
any conference that has two or more members that are ranked in the BCS top 5 must match the top 2 rated teams against each other in their championship game regardless of which division that they are in.
if a conference doesn't have a championship game it would preclude their members from playing one another in the BCS NCG.
That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
One way to cut down on potential controversy would be to adopt a rule that stated;
any conference that has two or more members that are ranked in the BCS top 5 must match the top 2 rated teams against each other in their championship game regardless of which division that they are in.
if a conference doesn't have a championship game it would preclude their members from playing one another in the BCS NCG.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
Thorpe and I have been agreeing with each other on this stuff for years. I would think the present system would be about ideal, except for the conference tie-ins. We could probably use smarter voters too , but that's true on a variety of fronts these days.
Is it just me, or are there more people on Covers who think OK State not going to the title game is a travesty than there are people in Stillwater who think OK State not going is a travesty?
Thorpe and I have been agreeing with each other on this stuff for years. I would think the present system would be about ideal, except for the conference tie-ins. We could probably use smarter voters too , but that's true on a variety of fronts these days.
Is it just me, or are there more people on Covers who think OK State not going to the title game is a travesty than there are people in Stillwater who think OK State not going is a travesty?
Thorpe and I have been agreeing with each other on this stuff for years. I would think the present system would be about ideal, except for the conference tie-ins. We could probably use smarter voters too , but that's true on a variety of fronts these days.
Is it just me, or are there more people on Covers who think OK State not going to the title game is a travesty than there are people in Stillwater who think OK State not going is a travesty?
Thorpe and I have been agreeing with each other on this stuff for years. I would think the present system would be about ideal, except for the conference tie-ins. We could probably use smarter voters too , but that's true on a variety of fronts these days.
Is it just me, or are there more people on Covers who think OK State not going to the title game is a travesty than there are people in Stillwater who think OK State not going is a travesty?
Well, I think the idea is to keep everything as it is except instead of seeding the top 2 teams in a championship game as we do now, we would seed the top 4 teams. The #1 ranked team would then play #4 and the #2 ranked team would play #3 in a semi-final round. Then there would be one additional game played between the winners (or a +1).
If the logistics can be worked out to make this a reality, I'm all for it. I don't think a format that involves more than 4 teams is realistic however, because you are simply asking these teams to play too many games. In a 4-team playoff format a team that plays in a conference with a conference championship would have to play 15 games. 15 games!!! I just don't think you can push it any further than that.
And of course the fan issue that you raised is also a very legitimate hurdle. Imagine fans having to travel to Miami one week for a semi-final game, and then Glendale or Pasadena the following week? That takes some very deep pockets and a lot of vacation time.
Well, I think the idea is to keep everything as it is except instead of seeding the top 2 teams in a championship game as we do now, we would seed the top 4 teams. The #1 ranked team would then play #4 and the #2 ranked team would play #3 in a semi-final round. Then there would be one additional game played between the winners (or a +1).
If the logistics can be worked out to make this a reality, I'm all for it. I don't think a format that involves more than 4 teams is realistic however, because you are simply asking these teams to play too many games. In a 4-team playoff format a team that plays in a conference with a conference championship would have to play 15 games. 15 games!!! I just don't think you can push it any further than that.
And of course the fan issue that you raised is also a very legitimate hurdle. Imagine fans having to travel to Miami one week for a semi-final game, and then Glendale or Pasadena the following week? That takes some very deep pockets and a lot of vacation time.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
I think fans having to travel to distant games is most definitely a problem, and he even mentions that in the article.
The other scenario you mention which a conditional play-in game has also been discussed by others. I really don't like it because then you'll have a huge uproar the year it is decided the play-in game isn't necessary. I just think it invites more problems and controversy. That said, regardless of what the system issettled upon there will always be problems and controversy.
The type of post-season regime you suggest would require scrapping the current system entirely, and there is simply no way that's going to happen. Moeover, a 16-team format is just absurd. That would require the 2 teams that made it into the championship game to play 4 extra games. Accommodating such a playoff format invaribly means you would have to shorten the regular season. That couple with the fact you are cutting the number of teams participating in a college post-season from 70 to 16, and the amount of money that would be lost by such a format would be staggering. And again. asking fans from two fan bases to attend all of these games is completely unrealistic.
The type of post-season regime you suggest would require scrapping the current system entirely, and there is simply no way that's going to happen. Moeover, a 16-team format is just absurd. That would require the 2 teams that made it into the championship game to play 4 extra games. Accommodating such a playoff format invaribly means you would have to shorten the regular season. That couple with the fact you are cutting the number of teams participating in a college post-season from 70 to 16, and the amount of money that would be lost by such a format would be staggering. And again. asking fans from two fan bases to attend all of these games is completely unrealistic.
The only real problem for the coaches are that it would require them to divert a lot of time and attention that would otherwise be focused on recruiting to game-planning for an extra game. I think that would be a relatively minor inconvenience however, given that playing in a national championship game would serve a pretty good informercial for your program.
The only real problem for the coaches are that it would require them to divert a lot of time and attention that would otherwise be focused on recruiting to game-planning for an extra game. I think that would be a relatively minor inconvenience however, given that playing in a national championship game would serve a pretty good informercial for your program.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.