Potato Bowl? I’ll have to watch that just for it being a potato.
Sportscenter Intro. Question: Why is Andrew Luck in the intro. running across the field? All of the major sports champions are there - Packers, Auburn, Nascar, etc.? And then Andrew Luck runs by…what am I missing?
[quote]educote wrote:
Sportscenter Intro. Question: Why is Andrew Luck in the intro. running across the field? All of the major sports champions are there - Packers, Auburn, Nascar, etc.? And then Andrew Luck runs by…what am I missing?[/quote]
Because he’s OBVIOUSLY the best college football player in the country lulz
Ah, what the hell, since this thread is so quiet until the good bowl comes come along, I will post my idea for a college football playoff format. Debate it or ignore it:
- 6 Team Playoff for the National Championship
- Includes the four highest ranked conference champions plus two next highest ranked teams, according to BCS polling. Teams are seeded based on BCS ranking.
- Top two teams get a bye.
- #3 and #4 seeds host (home game) the #6 and #5 team (3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5, unless this creates a rematch from the regular season; matchups can be swapped if this is the case). These games are played the week after the Conference Championship Games.
- #1 and #2 host (home game) the winners of the previous games on the following week. Winners advance to the National Championship Game.
- All other Bowl Games are played as scheduled. Losers of the first round of playoffs face each other in a final bowl game. Losers of the second round of playoffs face each other in a final bowl game.
This year, this format would have had Wisconsin at Stanford and Oregon at Oklahoma State on December 10, with the Wiscy/Stanford winner playing at LSU and the Oregon/OK St winner playing at Bama on December 17. (Seedings were arranged to avoid a Stanford/Oregon rematch and a possible Oregon/LSU rematch). If the National Championship game results in a rematch after all this, well, at least they would have truly earned their way back there. Then all these teams would get their bowl game after January 1 like normal.
My rationale/explanation is in the next post. (Didn’t want a single post to be too long).
(continued from above)
Why 6 teams? Many playoff formats include 8 or 6 teams, but having that many would surely include teams who are clearly not deserving of a National Championship (2 or more losses, for example) and would dilute the intrigue of the playoff. Why not 4 teams (a plus-one, essentially)? 6 teams gives more conferences the chance to have representation in the playoff and allows a format which increases the importance of the seed ranking. While there is usually not more than 4 teams in the National Championship discussion, having six teams adds an extra layer to the playoffs (meaning teams #3-6 will truly have to earn it as opposed to scoring one lucky upset), and more conferences have the chance to be involved.
The 6 team format increases the importance of regular season games because the difference between #2 and #3 is a bye week and a home game versus hosting a game and then going on the road. The difference between #4 and #5 is playing two road games against elite competition and getting to host one game. This still favors the higher ranked team but allows a team like Boise State (in recent years, for example) to prove their merits in tough environments.
Why guarantees to conference champs? The BCS has largely been held together because the power conferences want guaranteed money. Even though most people agree a playoff would be very lucrative, the conferences still want their guarantees. Promising a spot in the playoffs to the best conference champs still guarantees a spot if they are strong enough. I thought about having the format include five conference champs and one wild card, but the way the rankings went this year would have totally fucked things and included too many low-ranked teams in the playoff. We still want the best in there. Most years, this format would include most of the top 6 straight up, but this season, the fourth highest ranked conference champ is Wisconsin at #10. The fifth highest is Clemson at #15. This year is an anomaly though, most seasons, the top five conference champs would be in the top 10 or higher.
Why have teams host their games instead of in neutral bowl locations? For the fans. If all the playoff games were at neutral sites, as many playoff formats have suggested, who would go to the games? Between conference championship games and bowl games, that’s asking fans to do a lot of traveling. Lots of fans who go to bowl games save their money for one big trip each year. Three or four neutral sites in a row would equal too many empty seats for games that are so big. Home games make sure the fans can still see their teams (if they are hosting, anyway) and gives more of the revenue to the schools who have earned it (although there would still have to be some revenue sharing in place, I suppose).
Arguments against playoffs say that the regular season is already a playoff, and a playoff format would diminish the importance of regular season games. No way! This format not only adds importance to so many more games by giving more teams something to fight for late in the season, but also the top teams will need to maintain their position since seeding would be so critical.
Arguments against playoffs say that it would destroy the tradition of the bowl season. Bullshit! First of all, I think most playoff ideas still use the bowl games, so this is not a legitimate argument. But this format would not change any of the bowls. The minor bowls would remain the same. The major bowls would still include the top teams and conference champs, and the losers of the playoff games would get their own bowl with the same amount of time to prepare for each other. The games in this format bridge the gap between the end of the regular season and bowl season with some exciting, important matchups.
Arguments against playoffs say student athletes won’t have time to study! Come on, as if big time college football is about anything but money. While I agree academics should be prioritized, to use this as an argument when academics is otherwise just an afterthought is disingenuous. Besides, lower divisions of football have playoffs with way more participants, and they make it work. In this format, you’d only be talking about 4 schools having a game during finals week.
So, what are everyone’s thoughts? Does this idea have merit, or does it suck a Tiger’s balls?
I prefer more teams, 8. That gives most conferences a shot at least.
I thought this is an interesting formula here:
[quote]Ulty wrote:
Does this idea have merit, or does it suck Tiger’s balls?
[/quote]
That cost Tiger $100M
The problem with the whole playoff scenerio is that no matter what, it’s unfair. People are still gonna complain and teams are still gonna be left out while undeserving teams get in.
Let’s that the first example. Top 4 conference champs plus 2 at large bids. That means that LSU, OK state, oregon, boise state are in as champs with bama and stanford in as at-large bids.
This leaves Arkansas out though they are ranked higher then Boise State, even though their only 2 losses are the current number 1 and 2. Is that fair? For that matter, should Boise State be in over Kansas State and USC?
2nd Example. This one is much worse. LA tech, west virginia, southern miss, arkansas state, and northern illinois get in? But USC, virginia tech, Baylor, Michigan, and Oklahoma don’t?
It’s also unfair for another reason. Let’s just take this year as an example, but it works for just about every national champ in the last decade.
LSU has defeated Oregon (Pac-12 champ), West Virginia (Big East champ), Auburn (last year’s champ), Alabama (#2 in the BCS), Arkansas (top ten in BCS), and Georgia in the SEC championship game. After all that, they still have to go beat Bama again to be awarded the title. It would be rediculous after a season like this to tell LSU they haven’t proven themselves and they still need to go win 4 more huge games.
^Not following your logic. What was proposed was basically the AQ conferences each get a play-off berth, and then 2 other teams get “at large” seeds.
In your first example, Boise State is not currently in an AQ conference, so they could only get an at large bid. Only way to get that at large bid is by being ranked higher than the the other remaining non-AQ conference schools and the AQ non-conference winners. I think Arkansas would still get a shot this year under the layout proposed above.
For your 2nd example, 4 of those teams would have to win their AQ conferences to get it, which all but WV are not even in AQ conferences.
I want to go to a system that avoids things like VA Tech and Michigan getting a BCS bowl when there were many teams ranked above them and eligible to go to the game, and one that has a Heisman winner on it.
I do agree for LSU this year, the play off would suck. They already played/beat the 2 teams they would most likely have to play again in the play off to be national champs.
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
^Not following your logic. What was proposed was basically the AQ conferences each get a play-off berth, and then 2 other teams get “at large” seeds.
In your first example, Boise State is not currently in an AQ conference, so they could only get an at large bid. Only way to get that at large bid is by being ranked higher than the the other remaining non-AQ conference schools and the AQ non-conference winners. I think Arkansas would still get a shot this year under the layout proposed above.
For your 2nd example, 4 of those teams would have to win their AQ conferences to get it, which all but WV are not even in AQ conferences.
I want to go to a system that avoids things like VA Tech and Michigan getting a BCS bowl when there were many teams ranked above them and eligible to go to the game, and one that has a Heisman winner on it.
I do agree for LSU this year, the play off would suck. They already played/beat the 2 teams they would most likely have to play again in the play off to be national champs.[/quote]
In the first example, the guy who posted it just said the top 4 ranked conference champs, not the top 4 AQ champs. The 2nd example I used was from the link posted, in which all conference champs get in regardless.
I agree that Vtech and Michigan definitely do not deserve to be in BCS bowls, but unfortunetly they were picked for how well they travel, which sucks. Vtech hasn’t even beaten a ranked team all year! I think the human voters really dropped the ball on that one, they should be paying more attention.
Also, I am beyond ready for the new BCS contract to be signed so the Big East will get there automatic bid taken away. WV is number 23 this year, and UCONN wasn’t even ranked last year. The big east is basically making one BCS game a year a snoozer bc their champ has no chance of winning.
I am a HUGE sec fan, and I hate the idea of a rematch. Bama had their chance and blew it. They should not get another shot, and if bama was to win, how can you definitively say they are the better team? You can’t, and it’s dumb. Especially when you consider that OK state had such a great resume.
Frogs will play La Tech in front of an empty stadium in San Diego. Something needs to change.
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
MICHIGAN
EDITED: To fix the 3 Big 12 team issue
[quote]gregron wrote:
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
BAYLOR[/quote]
You have 3 Big 12 teams (OK State, K State, and Baylor) but are missing Arkansas in your list. How did you compile that list?
I think the whole 2 teams per conference in the BCS is BS. If a conference has the top 4 teams in the country based on the BCS rankings, they should all get to go to BCS bowls.
[quote]waldo21212 wrote:
You have 3 Big 12 teams (OK State, K State, and Baylor) but are missing Arkansas in your list. How did you compile that list?[/quote]
oops… should have been Michigan instead of Baylor.
that list was from the final BCS Standings
[quote]
I think the whole 2 teams per conference in the BCS is BS. If a conference has the top 4 teams in the country based on the BCS rankings, they should all get to go to BCS bowls.[/quote]
the whole system is kinda BS so the 2 teams per conference thing fits in… but that is one aspect of the BCS that I actually do like.
[quote]gregron wrote:
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
MICHIGAN
EDITED: To fix the 3 Big 12 team issue[/quote]
Boise lost to TCU. TCU is the conference champ of the now gutted MWC.
[quote]Spike9726 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
MICHIGAN
EDITED: To fix the 3 Big 12 team issue[/quote]
Boise lost to TCU. TCU is the conference champ of the now gutted MWC.[/quote]
And?
[quote]gregron wrote:
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
MICHIGAN
EDITED: To fix the 3 Big 12 team issue[/quote]
So you want to top 10 BCS teams…but dont want more than two per conference…meaning you DONT want the top 10 BCS teams…oh greg.
La Tech came to play, Frogs better wake up!
[quote]gregron wrote:
And?[/quote]
Is this about quality or just a popularity contest? Glad baseball does not have this crap.
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
They should just get rid of the AQ thing all together and put the top 10 BCS teams in the games (with a max of 2 teams per conference)
That would be pretty legit.
That would be:
LSU
ALABAMA
OK STATE
STANFORD
OREGON
BOISE STATE
KANSAS STATE
WISCONSIN
VA TECH
MICHIGAN
EDITED: To fix the 3 Big 12 team issue[/quote]
So you want to top 10 BCS teams…but dont want more than two per conference…meaning you DONT want the top 10 BCS teams…oh greg.[/quote]