 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Which would you prefer in College Football?
| Poll: Which would you prefer in College Football? | |
|---|---|
| Keep the BCS, I like it as is. | 9 |
| Sack the BCS, let's have a playoff. | 13 |
| Go back to the old way pre-BCS. | 2 |
andrew
Maybe if my school played football or I really rooted for one team I would care, but as it is I just like seeing good games. If USC gets screwed out of the NC game but VT and Texas play an overtime thriller I would be just fine.
October 29, 2005 at 07:54AM View BBCode
I don't really care.Maybe if my school played football or I really rooted for one team I would care, but as it is I just like seeing good games. If USC gets screwed out of the NC game but VT and Texas play an overtime thriller I would be just fine.
barterer2002
8 teams. Champions of the Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and three wild cards (highest ranked BCS formula probalby). That gives us seven games to play. Play those games at the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Peach Bowl, Alamo Bowl and Gator Bowl. The games would rotate so that every seven years one would host the national championship. The years that your bowl does not have the national championship it can host another New Years Day bowl (since none of them matter anyway). The National Championship is the Monday after New Years Day, unless New Years Day falls on a Monday in which case the National Championship game is the following Friday. The two semi final games are played the Saturday closest to Christmas. The quarter final game is the Saturday before that.
Simple enough, plus it generates more interest in the sport as well as more revenue for the Bowls.
October 29, 2005 at 02:39PM View BBCode
Definately a playoff system.8 teams. Champions of the Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big 12 and three wild cards (highest ranked BCS formula probalby). That gives us seven games to play. Play those games at the Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Peach Bowl, Alamo Bowl and Gator Bowl. The games would rotate so that every seven years one would host the national championship. The years that your bowl does not have the national championship it can host another New Years Day bowl (since none of them matter anyway). The National Championship is the Monday after New Years Day, unless New Years Day falls on a Monday in which case the National Championship game is the following Friday. The two semi final games are played the Saturday closest to Christmas. The quarter final game is the Saturday before that.
Simple enough, plus it generates more interest in the sport as well as more revenue for the Bowls.
FuriousGiorge
October 29, 2005 at 04:09PM View BBCode
Completely unfeasible. People are not going to travel to 3 locations in two weeks. The games would be played in front of half empty stadiums.
skierdude44
October 29, 2005 at 04:29PM View BBCode
It's a pointless debate anyway because no amount of controversy will change the BCS system. Not as long as the bowl games keep selling out and they are raking in million from advertising revenue and what not. As long as it's making money they really don't care. An 8 team playoff like Barterer's suggestion would be great from a competition standpoint, but Furious is right and for those reasons it will never happen. It sucks that someone seemingly gets screwed every year out of a chance to play for the National Championship, but I'm with Drew, as long as we get some good games that's all that matters. What really sucks is a situation like last year where a team like Auburn gets screwed and Oklahoma lays an egg in the Championship game.
DougB
I seriously doubt the 4-team format would happen though I suppose if people get greedy enough they might try it.
October 29, 2005 at 05:43PM View BBCode
these are not proffesional athletes. they are supposed to be students. no 8-team playoff will ever happen. Ever.I seriously doubt the 4-team format would happen though I suppose if people get greedy enough they might try it.
Cubsfan13
October 29, 2005 at 05:53PM View BBCode
The most likely scenario (after staying as is) is the plus one thing, where they play all the regular bowls and then after that the number one and two teams play in another game.
barterer2002
You've got to be kidding me here. Certainly you're aware that they do it in division II and division III football plus there's Oh I don't know, EVERY OTHER DIVISION I SPORT!! College football players playing during their winter break will miss significantly less time in class than their basketball counterparts in March.
October 29, 2005 at 06:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by DougB
these are not proffesional athletes. they are supposed to be students. no 8-team playoff will ever happen. Ever.
I seriously doubt the 4-team format would happen though I suppose if people get greedy enough they might try it.
You've got to be kidding me here. Certainly you're aware that they do it in division II and division III football plus there's Oh I don't know, EVERY OTHER DIVISION I SPORT!! College football players playing during their winter break will miss significantly less time in class than their basketball counterparts in March.
FuriousGiorge
Anyway, that's not my argument. You're still talking about a system that is going to lead to empty stadiums, or at the very least stadiums filled with uninterested spectators.
October 29, 2005 at 06:50PM View BBCode
Well, just because it's not as bad doesn't make it right.Anyway, that's not my argument. You're still talking about a system that is going to lead to empty stadiums, or at the very least stadiums filled with uninterested spectators.
barterer2002
October 29, 2005 at 08:49PM View BBCode
I certainly understood your point FG, I wasn't arguing against you in my last post, although if I were I would point to the NCAA Basketball tourney, and yes I know those are just 14-25,000 seat arenas but people do travel to them three weeks in a row. You may be right that you're not filling a 100,000 seat stadium three weeks in a row. You would certainly sell out the championship game-probably long before the teams are known. I'll bet that they're more than half full and even if you're right, and 50,000 people come, that's still an extra game for the arena and the money isn't coming from the game day ticket sales for the NCAA anyway, that comes from the TV contracts.
FuriousGiorge
October 29, 2005 at 09:11PM View BBCode
Schools aren't going to support a system where 1) their students aren't realistically able to attend games and 2) they aren't seeing the revenue directly. If a playoff system ever happens it will involve at most one neutral site bowl game. Preliminary games leading to the championship will end up being moved to one of the participants' home field. Hence, the end of the bowl system. That championship game gets rotated, presumably, between the big-time bowls, so that one bowl gets a premiere game and the rest get scraps.
barterer2002
Do you mean like the basketball tourney?
again, teams can certainly see revenue with the proceeds from the TV deal being split among the conferences (after the NCAA takes a cut off the top) with each school getting a piece of the pie.
One bowl gets a premiere game with the rest getting scraps??? How is that any different than the current system?
October 29, 2005 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Schools aren't going to support a system where 1) their students aren't realistically able to attend games
Do you mean like the basketball tourney?
and 2) they aren't seeing the revenue directly.
again, teams can certainly see revenue with the proceeds from the TV deal being split among the conferences (after the NCAA takes a cut off the top) with each school getting a piece of the pie.
If a playoff system ever happens it will involve at most one neutral site bowl game. Preliminary games leading to the championship will end up being moved to one of the participants' home field. Hence, the end of the bowl system. That championship game gets rotated, presumably, between the big-time bowls, so that one bowl gets a premiere game and the rest get scraps.
One bowl gets a premiere game with the rest getting scraps??? How is that any different than the current system?
barterer2002
October 29, 2005 at 09:27PM View BBCode
You know FG, with the arguments you're making here, I might just start to think you don't agree with me but we both know that can't be.
FuriousGiorge
I agree, the BCS has taken some of the luster out of the non-championship bowls. But they are still meaningful games for the teams that are playing in them, especially when those teams aren't embroiled in "should have been playing in the championship" controversy. With an 8 team playoff, you basically kill off the remaining interest in the rest of the postseason games - anyone who's close is pissed that they didn't make it and is bitter over that, and anyone further out of the playoff picture sucks and no one cares about you.
With 8 teams it is entire possible you're looking at letting in 2-loss teams, some of which would have come at the hands of teams higher up in the seeding. I can't see how that's any more fair than what we have now. Go undefeated, with a win over team X in October, but then lose to them in December and you're out of the title picture? That's a very likely scenario with a playoff.
The basketball tourney happens on neutral sites because they are much smaller venues. If a postseason tournament ever happens in football, you can be sure that the schools are rapidly going to settle on the fact that hosting a playoff game is a much more sensible course of action than farming it out to bowls which won't be able to fill the entire stadium, and therefore won't be able to pay as much for the rights to the games. 100,000 people aren't going to pay 100 dollars per head, plus travel expenses and travel time, to watch Georgia play Penn State in Pasedena when it's not even the final game of the season, but simply one of many.
[Edited on 10-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
October 29, 2005 at 10:27PM View BBCode
I don't know. I'd love to see my team get a shot at the title, but a college football playoff system has a lot of problems and I'd like some of its proponents to acknowledge them.I agree, the BCS has taken some of the luster out of the non-championship bowls. But they are still meaningful games for the teams that are playing in them, especially when those teams aren't embroiled in "should have been playing in the championship" controversy. With an 8 team playoff, you basically kill off the remaining interest in the rest of the postseason games - anyone who's close is pissed that they didn't make it and is bitter over that, and anyone further out of the playoff picture sucks and no one cares about you.
With 8 teams it is entire possible you're looking at letting in 2-loss teams, some of which would have come at the hands of teams higher up in the seeding. I can't see how that's any more fair than what we have now. Go undefeated, with a win over team X in October, but then lose to them in December and you're out of the title picture? That's a very likely scenario with a playoff.
The basketball tourney happens on neutral sites because they are much smaller venues. If a postseason tournament ever happens in football, you can be sure that the schools are rapidly going to settle on the fact that hosting a playoff game is a much more sensible course of action than farming it out to bowls which won't be able to fill the entire stadium, and therefore won't be able to pay as much for the rights to the games. 100,000 people aren't going to pay 100 dollars per head, plus travel expenses and travel time, to watch Georgia play Penn State in Pasedena when it's not even the final game of the season, but simply one of many.
[Edited on 10-29-2005 by FuriousGiorge]
barterer2002
When I originally drew up a bowl proposal 15 years ago or so, I had it with 6 playoff teams and the top two get a bye, but after watching the NFL do that for a while, I don't like the idea of a bye.
October 29, 2005 at 10:42PM View BBCode
I think the point you make about fans travelling is a valid one and is clearly a deterant to the playoff system. The point about rendering the bowl games meaningless is silly. We have bowl games that pit the 4th place team in the Big 10 vs. the 4th place team in the SEC. How meaningful is that one? For most fans, not very, but for fans of those schools, its still meaningful. Those bowl games can still exist outside of the context of the playoffs in exactly the format they're now in.When I originally drew up a bowl proposal 15 years ago or so, I had it with 6 playoff teams and the top two get a bye, but after watching the NFL do that for a while, I don't like the idea of a bye.
ME
October 29, 2005 at 10:43PM View BBCode
A 4-team system would work best, it's one extra game and every team with a legitimate claim to be national champion would get a shot at it.
lvnwrth
Not sure what being students has to do with anything. NCAA Professional Football (call it what it really is) is the only sport sanctioned by the NCAA at ANY level that DOES NOT have a playoff. How is it that Division II players can play more games, have a playoff, miss more classes, and still graduate at higher rates?
Even under a proposed playoff system, football players miss less class time than basketball players, and A LOT of baseball players (especially those Northern teams that take 3 week road trips through the sunbelt states every spring).
NCAA Pro Football players' status as students has nothing to do with the fact that there's no playoff. It's a convenient dodge for AD's and proponents of the current system to throw out there, hoping enough of us will buy it, so they don't have to admit that it's always and only about the $$$.
October 30, 2005 at 01:37AM View BBCode
Originally posted by DougB
these are not proffesional athletes. they are supposed to be students. no 8-team playoff will ever happen. Ever.
I seriously doubt the 4-team format would happen though I suppose if people get greedy enough they might try it.
Not sure what being students has to do with anything. NCAA Professional Football (call it what it really is) is the only sport sanctioned by the NCAA at ANY level that DOES NOT have a playoff. How is it that Division II players can play more games, have a playoff, miss more classes, and still graduate at higher rates?
Even under a proposed playoff system, football players miss less class time than basketball players, and A LOT of baseball players (especially those Northern teams that take 3 week road trips through the sunbelt states every spring).
NCAA Pro Football players' status as students has nothing to do with the fact that there's no playoff. It's a convenient dodge for AD's and proponents of the current system to throw out there, hoping enough of us will buy it, so they don't have to admit that it's always and only about the $$$.
CardShark
Think about it. For about 17 straight days in December, ESPN has a game on TV that "claims" to be of importance. When really, the only importance that game serves are tv ratings and something to gamble on every night of the week. I used to work for a sportsbook and it's no coincidence that their biggest time of the year to make money was mid-December through the Holidays. I guarantee the casinos lobby lots of money to make sure the bowl system stays put.
Work it out however, but an 8 team playoff system 3 or 4 years later after being implemented would only leave current nay-sayers saying this: "I can't believe it used to be any other way." A playoff system in Football would get better ratings than any bowl game does now and would be fantastic and captivate the nation more than March Madness. But I'll admit, it might not be as profitable to the casinos and people making money off of bowls.
My guess, they'll do a +1 playoff. Why not? It's an extra game for ratings and gambling.
Just like the bye week being implemented in the NFL. It wasn't to give players rest, it was to create an extra week of football.
October 31, 2005 at 06:15AM View BBCode
This is the simple reason why there is no playoff system... The people in charge making money feel they can make more money as is. If they felt they'd make more money with a playoff system, than there would be one in a second. You're only kidding yourself if you think it's cause of the missing class time, or the travel or all the other reasons proponents to the BCS give. Like people have stated in this thread, every other sport misses way more class time than football would during a playoff system on winter break. Remember, school is out in December and early Jan.Think about it. For about 17 straight days in December, ESPN has a game on TV that "claims" to be of importance. When really, the only importance that game serves are tv ratings and something to gamble on every night of the week. I used to work for a sportsbook and it's no coincidence that their biggest time of the year to make money was mid-December through the Holidays. I guarantee the casinos lobby lots of money to make sure the bowl system stays put.
Work it out however, but an 8 team playoff system 3 or 4 years later after being implemented would only leave current nay-sayers saying this: "I can't believe it used to be any other way." A playoff system in Football would get better ratings than any bowl game does now and would be fantastic and captivate the nation more than March Madness. But I'll admit, it might not be as profitable to the casinos and people making money off of bowls.
My guess, they'll do a +1 playoff. Why not? It's an extra game for ratings and gambling.
Just like the bye week being implemented in the NFL. It wasn't to give players rest, it was to create an extra week of football.
whiskybear
I can tell you why they graduate at a higher rate: they didn't go to school specifically to play football and aren't talented enough to warrant interest from the NFL.
October 31, 2005 at 06:20AM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
How is it that Division II players can play more games, have a playoff, miss more classes, and still graduate at higher rates?
I can tell you why they graduate at a higher rate: they didn't go to school specifically to play football and aren't talented enough to warrant interest from the NFL.
Pages: 1