09 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy would they when Utah made Alabama look like a bunch of tards last year?
Unless we can convince more sportswriters and coaches that Boise State deserves a shot at them probably.
Perhaps my Buckeyes can sneak up on their cocky arses next year.
09 Jan 10
College football needs a play off system.
It doesn't matter if the 'best team' wins the national championship. All that matter is that all teams get a fair shot and the national championship is won on the field with minimized voter input.
I've always liked the 16 team model, with the last two rounds being played in bowls. The first two games would be played at one of the team's home sites.
Two weeks of home play-offs. Take a week of then play the last three games in bowls. Semi-finals on Jan 1 with NC is played on Jan 8. Teams knocked out in the first two rounds could play in other bowl games.
16 teams would give plenty of room for conference champs, as well as top teams who did not win their conference.
09 Jan 10
Too late to edit:
1st Round
Home vs Visitor
1.Alabama vs Nebraska
2.Texas vs Mid-America
3.Boise vs Sun Belt
4.Ohio State vs BYU
5.TCU vs Virginia Tech
6.Cinci vs Penn State
7.Oregon vs Iowa
8.C-USA champ vs Florida
Round 2
1 vs 8
2 vs 7
3 vs 6
4 vs 5
Round 3
1&8 vs 4&5
2&7 vs 3&6
This was done as I typed, so I may have missed a team and I may not have put them together very well. It would just be an example of what I mean.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by EladarSo you want to play a whole season including conference chamionship games and the only difference between Nebraska and Alabama is who gets a home game. To me this like college basketball. No one cares about the regular season at all. I know many people love the playoff system, but to me this is a hige step backwards.
Too late to edit:
1st Round
Home vs Visitor
1.Alabama vs Nebraska
2.Texas vs Mid-America
3.Boise vs Sun Belt
4.Ohio State vs BYU
5.TCU vs Virginia Tech
6.Cinci vs Penn State
7.Oregon vs Iowa
8.C-USA champ vs Florida
Round 2
1 vs 8
2 vs 7
3 vs 6
4 vs 5
Round 3
1&8 vs 4&5
2&7 vs 3&6
This was done as I typed, so I may ha ...[text shortened]... eam and I may not have put them together very well. It would just be an example of what I mean.
11 Jan 10
Originally posted by quackquackwell - under the current system, you have maybe five teams with a legitimate chance at winning the national title - and it seems like they all play garbage for almost all of their schedule. I suppose there's also something at stake for teams trying to win their conference so they can be in a bowl that someone has actually heard of - but does anyone really remember any of these games once they're over?
So you want to play a whole season including conference chamionship games and the only difference between Nebraska and Alabama is who gets a home game. To me this like college basketball. No one cares about the regular season at all. I know many people love the playoff system, but to me this is a hige step backwards.
And then there are all those garbage bowls - there's already way too many of them, and I hear there's going to be even more of them next year. Why not just have a bowl game for everyone?
But in order to give even the top three teams something to play for, I would have a 12-team playoff system and give the best four teams a bye. Meanwhile, the entire second half of the season would be a wild scramble as something like 50+ teams would probably have a shot at making the playoffs. For the first time, the regular season would actually MEAN SOMETHING to more than four teams. If you lost two games in September, there'd still be a whole lot to play for.
11 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by quackquackI also have a modest proposal. If the current college football approach is so great, why not do it the same way at the pro level. Scrap the playoff system and replace it by a system like the BCS based on polls and computer rankings. The top two teams meet in the Super Bowl. The other conference winners all meet in various prestigious bowls named after important products, and we'll have other bowls for any other teams finishing at or above .500.
So you want to play a whole season including conference chamionship games and the only difference between Nebraska and Alabama is who gets a home game. To me this like college basketball. No one cares about the regular season at all. I know many people love the playoff system, but to me this is a hige step backwards.
On the plus side, Indiannapolis would've have been going all out to finish 16-0. On the downside, we'd be having major arguments over whether New Orleans, San Diego, or Minnesota deserved to finish 2nd in the BCS rankings, while the NFL would be saying we can't change it because this new bowl system is making so much money and it makes the regular season mean something.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesAs a fan, I like your proposal. I would see the two best teams in the Super Bowl and all regular season games would matter. It actually is what baseball did before they went divisions. To me it is pretty clear that Indy was the best team in the AFC. There is no reason for teams like Jets (even if I root for them) or Baltimore to even get a chance to beat them.
I also have a modest proposal. If the current college football approach is so great, why not do it the same way at the pro level. Scrap the playoff system and replace it by a system like the BCS based on polls and computer rankings. The top two teams meet in the Super Bowl. The other conference winners all meet in various prestigious bowls named after imp ...[text shortened]... this new bowl system is making so much money and it makes the regular season mean something.
12 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackwhy would all the regular season games matter?
As a fan, I like your proposal. I would see the two best teams in the Super Bowl and all regular season games would matter. It actually is what baseball did before they went divisions. To me it is pretty clear that Indy was the best team in the AFC. There is no reason for teams like Jets (even if I root for them) or Baltimore to even get a chance to beat them.
To have a chance to make the Super Bowl game, you would probably need a record of at least 13-3 or better. So after week 8, the seasons of almost all the teams would be pretty much over - even a 5-3 team wouldn't stand much of a chance of making it. So almost ALL of the games in the second half of the season would be meaningless affairs by teams playing out the string. Look at how the Redskins were playing those last few weeks. Multiply that by 15.
And you still wouldn't necessarily see the "two best teams" - because who's to say which team among New Orleans or San Diego or Minnesota is the one to be facing Indiannapolis? It would depend on polls or someone's computer. Two of these teams would be spending all off-season declaring that they should've been in the Super Bowl.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI just don't like the whole "lottery" system where every team above a certain cutoff has an equals chance to be champions. The regular season should not be like exhibition games and the only thing that counts in the playoffs. Just because I root for them, I do not think teams like the Jets who were 7-7 and then won two games against teams that were resting should not get a chance to say they are champions. As for your comment, then you need to be at least 13-3 in the regular season to get a chance to play in the Superbowl. My answer would be yes, you should need to be 13-3 to be the considered the best team in the sport, not 9-7 but got hot starting on wild card weekend. Even baseball ruined the concept of winning races by adding wild cards. The Red Sox only won one division last decade but they don't care because they can and still do make the playoffs virtually every year. I want the best teams to be better than everyone (not just better than some teams ) to compete for championships.
why would all the regular season games matter?
To have a chance to make the Super Bowl game, you would probably need a record of at least 13-3 or better. So after week 8, the seasons of almost all the teams would be pretty much over - even a 5-3 team wouldn't stand much of a chance of making it. So almost ALL of the games in the second half of the seas ...[text shortened]... ms would be spending all off-season declaring that they should've been in the Super Bowl.
12 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackIf the main objective was just to decide who the best team was, you'd put all the teams into one big conference, have everyone play everyone else the same number of times, and whoever ends up with the best record is the champion. And dispense with post-season play entirely. (Given the 16 game limit in the NFL, you'd have two conferences of 16 teams and the two winners play in the Super Bowl). And there's no way you could ever do this with college where there are so many teams.
I just don't like the whole "lottery" system where every team above a certain cutoff has an equals chance to be champions. The regular season should not be like exhibition games and the only thing that counts in the playoffs. Just because I root for them, I do not think teams like the Jets who were 7-7 and then won two games against teams that were res to be better than everyone (not just better than some teams ) to compete for championships.
But that's not the main objective. The main objective is to entertain the fans as much as possible (and thus earn maximum income from ticket sales, TV revenue, etc). This requires that you keep a large percentage of the teams "in the running" as long as possible. Fans tend to become rather uninterested in games where nothing is really at stake.
And playoff games create absolute insanity with the fans, so you want to have lots of them. Lots of moolah to be made here. And most fans whose own teams don't make the playoffs like the idea of routing for Cinderella to knock off Mr. Big Stuff).
I do agree that perhaps the number of playoff teams need to reduced (especially in basketball and hockey where they take 16 teams). Perhaps the NFL needs to cut back from 12 to 10 or 8. Baseball is perfect with 8.
12 Jan 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesI liked baseball better when they had fewer teams and when things like winning your division or winning the pennant meant something. Now its just, "a play off year". Too many teams getting a chance swallows the whole regular season (college basekball being the worst offender and I no longer watch at all and then when the tournament comes I really know very little about the teams so i don't get up for that either). One of the things I like about college football is that you can watch a whole bunch of games in September and if a team pulls off an upset it eliminate a team (not just make them play a tougher first round playoff opponent). Florida - Alabama was a big as any game for the season because Florida lost its chance for a championship. I personally like big games through out the year.
If the main objective was just to decide who the best team was, you'd put all the teams into one big conference, have everyone play everyone else the same number of times, and whoever ends up with the best record is the champion. And dispense with post-season play entirely. (Given the 16 game limit in the NFL, you'd have two conferences of 16 teams and th ...[text shortened]... teams). Perhaps the NFL needs to cut back from 12 to 10 or 8. Baseball is perfect with 8.
14 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by quackquackWho gives a crap about the season right now? If OU isn't in the hunt, I sure don't. The quicker a person's team is out of the MNC hunt, the quicker a person interest in who is NC drops.
So you want to play a whole season including conference chamionship games and the only difference between Nebraska and Alabama is who gets a home game. To me this like college basketball. No one cares about the regular season at all. I know many people love the playoff system, but to me this is a hige step backwards.
Sure, there may be a team that you really hate and would like to see lose that may be in the race. But for me, that didn't really interest me either. I forgot about the Texas vs Alabama game and heard about the score the next day. Sure, I was happy with the result, but I wasn't interested enough to watch the game.
just don't like the whole "lottery" system where every team above a certain cutoff has an equals chance to be champions. The regular season should not be like exhibition games and the only thing that counts in the playoffs.
If a majority of the slots are filled with Conference Champions and only a second place team (or third of a very strong conference) makes the play offs, then it is not a lottery system. The regular season does matter.
Oklahoma would not have made the play offs this year. Why? Because they had a crappy season.
No system is perfect, but the one that I proposed would allow a team to determine its own destiny. If they win every game, they will be the NC. That can't be said today.
14 Jan 10
2 edits
one of the main excuses the NCAA gives for rejecting a "playoff system" is that it would mess around too much with the existing bowl system. So maybe they could use the "playoff system" they use in bowling. (no pun intended).
use the BCS system to choose the top five teams. Then #5 plays #4 - the winner plays #3, the winner of that plays #2, and the winner of that plays #1.
clearly, there would be a big advantage to be as close to #1 as possible, so the regular season would still "mean something" for the top contenders. You'd be much less likely to leave out a team with a legitimate claim to being the best. And you would have four games where the championship was at stake instead of just one.
15 Jan 10
There is no way that a playoff does not ruin rivalries and dilute the previously played games. I also think it would still cause a tremendous number of arguements. Take the USA today poll. If you had a 8 team play off based on their top eight. There would be three big 10 teams, 2 SEC teams, 2 non-BCS teams and one Big 12 team. Do you think the ACC and PAC 10 would be OK with that? Do you realy think that Penn State and Iowa have a legitimate claim at saying they had the best year in college football. I believe the answer is no even if they were to win the whole tournament. I also think it would really damage the sport if teams looked at the top 8 and said it is easier to be an indepndent and be like Boise and TCU then it is to be in a major conference and get aheada of Florida/ Alabama. You just can't have short seasons with 100+ teams and have one champion in which everyone who might have a claim to be the best gets their chance on the field.