A Glimmer of Hope for Playoff

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Congress needs to find something more important to do. I have some suggestions if they can't think of anything.

To be quite honest, I'd rather have Congress be distracted than pass some of the stuff they seemingly want to do .

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I disagree. Sure, almost any team in the SEC or the Big 10 would certainly be better, but they didn't win their conference and thus got eliminated. If you win your conference, you get a shot no matter what. If you don't win, then you might get a wilcard spot, but don't count on it.

I still think it was ridiculous that Nebraska played in the title game in 2001 when Colorado won the conference and beat them 62-36.

I think it creates all kinds of problems in a small tournament. It's silly that the the SEC or ACC has the same reward as the Sun Belt. Maybe Vanderbilt should move to the Sun Belt. They'd be guaranteed a playoff spot every year.

If conference champions are the majority of participants in a tournament, the talent in the conferences needs to be more evenly distributed.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by molson

That's just an opinion. And it's not shared by those who have the right to actually execute the idea. You're just a fan. You can spend your money somewhere else if you don't like it.

Yes, my reply was an opinion to your opinion. Hopefully your head isn't quite so far up your own ass that you saw your statement to be some kind of fact.

I suppose we shouldn't complain about things we already like in hopes that they might get even better :shrug:

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I disagree. Sure, almost any team in the SEC or the Big 10 would certainly be better, but they didn't win their conference and thus got eliminated. If you win your conference, you get a shot no matter what. If you don't win, then you might get a wilcard spot, but don't count on it.

I still think it was ridiculous that Nebraska played in the title game in 2001 when Colorado won the conference and beat them 62-36.

In addition to the fairness, having a few supposedly weaker teams would give the big schools more motivation for the top seeds in the tournament, a decent counterpoint to the "this will ruin the regular season" brigade.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Yes, my reply was an opinion to your opinion. Hopefully your head isn't quite so far up your own ass that you saw your statement to be some kind of fact.

I suppose we shouldn't complain about things we already like in hopes that they might get even better :shrug:

Your opinion is valid. But it has nothing to do with whether the federal government should make decisions regarding athletic competition. You opinion is based on a preference about sports.

Complain all you want. If there's enough complaints about a playoff (especially complaints that involve not spending money or tv time on the NCAA), then eventually, there will be a playoff, because it would be more profitable. Right now it wouldn't be, otherwise they'd do it.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Your opinion is valid. But it has nothing to do with whether the federal government should make decisions regarding athletic competition. You opinion is based on a preference about sports.

Complain all you want. If there's enough complaints about a playoff (especially complaints that involve not spending money or tv time on the NCAA), then eventually, there will be a playoff, because it would be more profitable. Right now it wouldn't be, otherwise they'd do it.

Because nobody makes bad business decisions? There's no chance they think it wouldn't be more profitiable, but are wrong? That's the argument you're running with?

[molson]

To be truly "fair", the NCAA would have to be setup like an American professional sport - for example, have different conferences and divisions that are as balanced as possible.

In the NCAA, that might involve a "American Conference, Southeast Division" that might have Georgia, Florida St, Florida, Vanderbilt, LSU, Miami, Mississippi St, Louisiana-Lafayette, Florida Atlantic, Troy. Guess who's not getting to the playoffs in that setup, no matter how many teams make it? You'd have the bigger schools succeed, because the bigger schools have more resources. Troy sure as hell ain't getting anywhere, even if they were the best old "Sun Belt" team, by far. So why should Troy be granted a clear path to a final 16 by getting to play weak programs? How does that make any sense for business, or fairness?

And if you don't accept that premise (of bigger schools being better) as "fair", now you're talking a recruiting budget cap, or a high school entry draft or something.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Because nobody makes bad business decisions? There's no chance they think it wouldn't be more profitiable, but are wrong? That's the argument you're running with?

They could very well be wrong. But that's their call to make. It isn't up to the government to correct bad business decisions (at least until recently)

So is the new justification for congressional sports legislation "it would be better financially and they just don't know it"? That's pretty a scary precedent.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

They could very well be wrong. But that's their call to make. It isn't up to the government to correct bad business decisions (at least until recently)

So is the new justification for congressional sports legislation "it would be better financially and they just don't know it"? That's pretty a scary precedent.

I've already said in this thread that I support a playoff, but don't support government action here (although I did with steroids).

I was just taking issue with your ridiculous argument that the playoffs wouldn't be more profitable because then the NCAA would be doing it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

.

I was just taking issue with your ridiculous argument that the playoffs wouldn't be more profitable because then the NCAA would be doing it.

I have no idea if that's true. But obviously the NCAA does, and they have the vote that counts.

Why do you think there's no playoff if not money? There's more parties with their hands in the treasure chest now, with the big universities, bowls, etc. But that counts as money too. They obviously think there's more money to be made with the premiere programs being protected. They would rather have a 10-2 Georgia team in the playoffs (or just a BCS game) than an 8-3 Sun Belt Champion Troy. I can't say I blame them.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I have no idea if that's true. But obviously the NCAA does, and they have the vote that counts.

Why do you think there's no playoff if not money? There's more parties with their hands in the treasure chest now, with the big universities, bowls, etc. But that counts as money too.

My point was that they could have analyzed the situation and decided it would be less profit, and could be dead wrong. Your earlier statement was saying that one thing (the NCAA not having playoffs) proved the other (playoffs wouldn't be more profitable.)

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My point was that they could have analyzed the situation and decided it would be less profit, and could be dead wrong. Your earlier statement was saying that one thing (the NCAA not having playoffs) proved the other (playoffs wouldn't be more profitable.)

No, I didn't mean that, but I can see how it reads that way. I agree that they absolutely could have analyzed the situation, and be dead wrong on the money. I didn't mean to say anything's proven (except what the NCAA's current opinion is).

[JPhillips]

Good to know Rep. Barton has time for both secession and playoffs.

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

No, the point of the bill is to force action, because the BCS does not seem inclined to do it on its own. If the BCS wants to avoid the bill, they can devise their own playoff in the manner they see fit that meets whatever minimums the writers of the bill intend--so long as it finally gets the system to some sort of a legitamite playoff.

As for that last, it's a tired and worthless argument (no offense, it just is, I know you're trotting out the party line, so hopefully you don't take offense). The "arguing 16 vs 17" line is one of the entrenched flawed arguments for the current system, which completely and irresponsibly ignores the fact that the current system has us arguing over 2 vs 3.

I know it's the "party line" but I don't want them to do 8 teams where everyone agrees to the system, then 4 years from now team #9 and some conference feels left out and then they bitch and it gets changed to 16 or whatever. Agree to whatever system then stop bitching about it and don't try to change it down the line. And yes I know this is not what is happening now I just don't want to see it keep changing.

I guess my bigger fear is you have power conference teams playing to go undefeated against inferior teams instead of playing prime time matchups in nonconference as the 12th game was intended to do. And you have "midmajors" start to do the same just to make the "playoff"

[SnDvls]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Well, if the #9 ranked team is undefeated and still missing out, they might have a point.

Top 8 BCS teams get in. I wouldn't be opposed to conference champs getting the higher seeds once the 8 are picked.

why would they have to be undefeated? It's about the best teams and if 5 teams have 1 or 2 losses and only 4 make it don't they have an argument too?

What if a three loss teams wins the ACC and the team they beat suffered their only loss in that game? There are just too many holes in the 8 team playoff system just as there are in the current system.

[Raiders Army]

Just run the tournament for the regular season. The losers would fight it out in a losers' bracket and we'd really know who was ranked #26, #58, or #111 at the end of the year.

[Raiders Army]

BTW, that was a joke.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This position is ok, but then the government should be out completely. That means no anti-trust protection, no public funding for stadiums, etc.

Yes please. I would much prefer this to the idea that Congress (or any other governmental entity) has the authority to involve itself in the outcome of a sporting event.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by molson

So the theory is that calling the NCAA champion "national champion" is fraudulent or misleading?

No, but obviously their misleading labeling of the BCS champion as the national champion has fooled you.

The NCAA does not award a championship in football. Period. Never have.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

No, but obviously their misleading labeling of the BCS champion as the national champion has fooled you.

The NCAA does not award a championship in football. Period. Never have.

Great, so what's the problem then? They choose not to award a championship. So nobody has unfair lack of access to it.

[Passacaglia]

Well if it's the BCS Championship, shouldn't non-BCS school be completely ineligible. Maybe the non-BCS conferences and Notre Dame should form a Division 1 and one-and-a-half A.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The NCAA does not award a championship in football. Period. Never have.

That is false. They award championships to all non FBS divisions.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by Noop

That is false. They award championships to all non FBS divisions.

Absolutely, and if the West Mountain (which is what the Congressionals were calling them, apparently) want to play in a championship, they should prove it by entering I-A (or whatever its called these days) and seeing if they can beat the Richmonds and JMUs first.

Which is where the Potato States of the world belong in the first place.

[Capital]

I love the argument that a playoff would make the other bowls meaningless. I thought they already were meaningless. There's a lot of teams out there that use the second-tier and below bowls as the first preseason game of the next season.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Your opinion is valid. But it has nothing to do with whether the federal government should make decisions regarding athletic competition. You opinion is based on a preference about sports.

The federal government steps in to make decisions for monopolies all the time. I don't see why the NCAA should be treated differently from your local electric or gas company.

[RendeR]

The current system is terrible, fraudulent and lends itself to behinds teh scenes scheming by the "in crowd" of the big conference schools leaving anyone not in that group sitting outside looking in.

It must be changed because its a joke and more often than not, it fails miserably to provide quality bowl games which the public spends obscene amounts of money on.

If it takes the government sticking a cattle prod up the NCAA's ass to get a true playoff system in place, so be it.


For my own opinion:

8 conferences of 9 teams each, current conferences with MORE than 9 teams will decide on their own, which teams will move to new/different or lower division play.

Each team plays 8 conference games (1 with each conference rival) + 2 out of conference games against teams within the other 7 conferences.

This gives us a 10 game season for ALL teams with a higher quality of schedules due to the inability of top end schools to schedule shit teams out of conference.

All current conference championship games are eliminated. The winner of the conference season has the best record overall (yes INCLUDING the OOC games) If tOSU and Mishitgan are both 10-1 at the end of teh season the head to head game decides who moves on. You want a shot at the title? WIN, period.

The 8 conference winners then get seeded RANDOMLY to eliminate complaints of "but they played a weak conference I should get to play them first not this other really good team".

3 rounds, 1 champion, no more whining and bitching because people THINK this team or that team was better. If you're best, you WIN, period. Its fair and equitable to everyone in the 72 team field.

The other 50+ teams currently in the top division get shuffled downward. Relegation systems could be considered to allow growth and change in the top division.

Teams NOT in the playoffs can still be offered bowl games and bowl games can continue their current status of holiday entertainment and a financial and image building benefit for the schools involved.