Messages

Forum Index : College Football : Messages
Author: [College Football] Topic: College Football Final Four (Outstanding Article)
jimmydafreak send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
jimmydafreak
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12607
Location: United States
#1
Posted: 12/9/2011 3:10:41 PM

This is a must read for those who are grumpy about the current BCS system.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-wetzel_football_final_four_gains_steam_120811

 

quote
Bunnychow send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Bunnychow
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 176
Location:
#2
Posted: 12/9/2011 3:43:35 PM
My friends and I have been saying the exact thing in conversations for years. Total common sense and it should be implemented next year.

But like our government common sense isn't "common."

BC
quote
thorpe send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
thorpe
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location:
#3
Posted: 12/9/2011 3:49:23 PM
The quality of play in the BCS Champ game will be atrocious.  It takes more than 1 week to put in a gameplan in college under the best of circumstances.  Now you have to do it with a ton of distractions and probably banged up from the first game.

Also, I wonder how many fans will be able to travel to both the semifinal game and the championship game?

Here is what I'd prefer.  Keep what we have now, but in the years where more than 2 teams can make a case for being in the BCS game, add a round of "play-in"  games in early December to narrow it down to 2.  Then let the teams have 3 weeks to gameplan, rest, and prepare.  But the current system works out 7 out of 8 years...
quote
-29-
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
-29-
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3299
Location: Virginia
#4
Posted: 12/9/2011 6:23:46 PM

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.

 

quote
Bunnychow send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
Bunnychow
Participation Meter
Prospect
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 176
Location:
#5
Posted: 12/9/2011 6:40:21 PM
Stanford 1 loss and Oregon 2 losses, I'd be okay with that.
Lose one less and Oregon is in. 

@thorpe- If you are worried about time between games, you could move the semi-final games to middle or for "kicking off" the Bowl games.

It's logical and it works. 
quote
-29-
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
-29-
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3299
Location: Virginia
#6
Posted: 12/9/2011 7:30:05 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by -29-:

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.  

 

quote
jimmydafreak send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
jimmydafreak
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12607
Location: United States
#7
Posted: 12/9/2011 7:47:23 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by thorpe:

The quality of play in the BCS Champ game will be atrocious.  It takes more than 1 week to put in a gameplan in college under the best of circumstances.  Now you have to do it with a ton of distractions and probably banged up from the first game.

Also, I wonder how many fans will be able to travel to both the semifinal game and the championship game?

Here is what I'd prefer.  Keep what we have now, but in the years where more than 2 teams can make a case for being in the BCS game, add a round of "play-in"  games in early December to narrow it down to 2.  Then let the teams have 3 weeks to gameplan, rest, and prepare.  But the current system works out 7 out of 8 years...

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. 

 

quote
-29-
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
-29-
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3299
Location: Virginia
#8
Posted: 12/9/2011 8:13:22 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by jimmydafreak:

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.

quote
thorpe send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
thorpe
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location:
#9
Posted: 12/9/2011 9:22:22 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by jimmydafreak:

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. 

 



Seems like the current system has the fewest problems.  I can live with a team (EG: Auburn)  getting shafted once every 8 years. 


One other thing is that the Bowl Game experience offers more to a player than a playoff.  They get gifts, do fun stuff, and the atmosphere is more relaxed.


 Right now, you end the year with 35 Bowl winners.  Go to a playoff, and  maybe instead you are going to have 119 losers and 1 champ.
quote
MaineRoad
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
MaineRoad
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 11080
Location: Burkina Faso
#10
Posted: 12/9/2011 9:49:08 PM

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? 

quote
thorpe send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
thorpe
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9273
Location:
#11
Posted: 12/10/2011 11:37:34 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by MaineRoad:

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? 





Last year you could have said the same thing with TCU in place of OK St.  Everyone nationally was bent out of shape that TCU was shut out, but everything I heard from TCU was how excited they were to play in the Rose Bowl.

As for the tie-ins, I don't have a big problem.  It is traditional for the Midwest to go to West to vacation in the winter, and they Eastern Seaboard goes South.



quote
jimmydafreak send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
jimmydafreak
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12607
Location: United States
#12
Posted: 12/10/2011 8:23:32 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by thorpe:



Seems like the current system has the fewest problems.  I can live with a team (EG: Auburn)  getting shafted once every 8 years. 


One other thing is that the Bowl Game experience offers more to a player than a playoff.  They get gifts, do fun stuff, and the atmosphere is more relaxed.


 Right now, you end the year with 35 Bowl winners.  Go to a playoff, and  maybe instead you are going to have 119 losers and 1 champ.

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.

 

quote
dytide send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
dytide
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: California
#13
Posted: 12/11/2011 1:42:58 AM
I agree with Jimmy that 4 teams is enough.

I just don't like using existing bowl games as playoff games.

I think we can have final four and still be able to fill in the major bowls.

also, like I have said before......it should be Oregon not Stanford



quote
Droxside send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
Droxside
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1287
Location: Florida
#14
Posted: 12/12/2011 7:21:10 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by jimmydafreak:

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 get your first point Jimmy. but road fans traveling not traveling should be of no concern. Use the higher seeds home field until the championship game. Part of being ranked higher should be home field and the Bama's, LSU's. Stanford's and Oklahoma ST fans will eat up any tickets not bought by the traveling team. They need to restructure the current regular season to fit a 8 or 16 team play-off system exactly as the lower divisions do. They are college students and do it every year. Copy it exactly and tweak it if it needs it after a few years. Leaving a 9th ranked team or 17th ranked team is far, far, far less important then leaving out undefeated teams or teams with the same record's. I get that conferences are not all equal, but who cares, let them play the games. Utah and Boise St have beaten the Bama's and Oklahoma's in big bowls when no one gave them a chance. Let the teams decide this, not two or four voted into a system as it fly's in the face of fairness for all and takes away the best play-off that would be in all of sports for sport fans...  
quote
ronwoodjzs send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
ronwoodjzs
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2067
Location: Armenia
#15
Posted: 12/12/2011 9:31:21 PM
Good article unfortunatey it makes way to much sense.  Dont these people who dont want it realize the money it would make,  they just need to be greased

The only issue I see is the travel.    The quality of the game i do not believe would be impacted, remember these teams are going to have at least 4 weeks off to heel wounds.  As far as game planning,  thats up to the coaches and staffs, thats what they do all year long and it is there jobs.  also if you got that far , you have your garbage down pretty good
quote
jimmydafreak send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
jimmydafreak
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12607
Location: United States
#16
Posted: 12/13/2011 1:54:39 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by Droxside:



I get your first point Jimmy. but road fans traveling not traveling should be of no concern. Use the higher seeds home field until the championship game. Part of being ranked higher should be home field and the Bama's, LSU's. Stanford's and Oklahoma ST fans will eat up any tickets not bought by the traveling team. They need to restructure the current regular season to fit a 8 or 16 team play-off system exactly as the lower divisions do. They are college students and do it every year. Copy it exactly and tweak it if it needs it after a few years. Leaving a 9th ranked team or 17th ranked team is far, far, far less important then leaving out undefeated teams or teams with the same record's. I get that conferences are not all equal, but who cares, let them play the games. Utah and Boise St have beaten the Bama's and Oklahoma's in big bowls when no one gave them a chance. Let the teams decide this, not two or four voted into a system as it fly's in the face of fairness for all and takes away the best play-off that would be in all of sports for sport fans...  

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.

 

quote
jimmydafreak send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
jimmydafreak
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12607
Location: United States
#17
Posted: 12/13/2011 1:58:47 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by ronwoodjzs:

Good article unfortunatey it makes way to much sense.  Dont these people who dont want it realize the money it would make,  they just need to be greased

The only issue I see is the travel.    The quality of the game i do not believe would be impacted, remember these teams are going to have at least 4 weeks off to heel wounds.  As far as game planning,  thats up to the coaches and staffs, thats what they do all year long and it is there jobs.  also if you got that far , you have your garbage down pretty good

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.

 

quote
Forum Index : College Football : Messages
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.