NCAA Football Buzzkill

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

I think in the Northeast, particularly the NYC metro area, it's WAY more a competition for entertainment thing.

edit: And I'd guess we have a very high percentage of people who either go to college locally and then move away or go to college elsewhere and then move into the area.

I think the diversity of this area has to be far greater than the average ACC or SEC powerhouse area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What it does is it puts all the conference champions (which would have to either be undefeated, or beaten an otherwise undefeated team) in a playoff pool.

How's that again?

You can still win your conference without being undefeated as well as without beating an otherwise undefeated team. Did I miss something else you changed somewhere, or was this not supposed to mean what you said?

(FTR, I went through your posts twice to see where this came from before asking, maybe I'm just overlooking it because my concentration is kind of off this afternoon)

[Young Drachma]

I never liked college football much because of the seeming predictability of it until I actually ended up at a D-1A school. I think that made me interest in the product across the board a lot more interesting and relevant.

But I too, have had it with the NCAA gestapo that run the games, that maintain such a tight grip so as to defy all logic and reason. I hate that schools like Wyoming spend insane amounts of money on sports thinking its their only chance to get respect on the national stage, when they'll never truly do anything other than tread water. And they make illogical decisions like cutting sports they've won national titles in (Skiing) to add sports that provide gender equity but make no sense at all in a place like this (Women's Tennis).

And as a former D-III athlete, I have a real problem with the fact that so-called non-revenue sports are valued less than those that are not. I realize it's a priority of each institution to choose what they'll do and such, but it's not as if the current structure really provides much incentive to do right by students.

Especially the students in the sports generating revenues. They were talking last night about a Florida State player who was such an anomaly because he was majoring in Chemistry and went on study abroad and such. Why does this have to be such an anomaly? Because the schools do a crappy job of recruiting kids who are actual students?

They don't care and they don't have to care. And until someone comes along with a more lucrative model for recruiting kids who would rather play sports than actually go to class.

At the same time, in lieu of a better model...it's better than nothing. Because kids are exposed to stuff they might not be otherwise and so, it's flawed and it stinks...but..I can't come up with a better solution that wouldn't cost tons of money.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

I think in the Northeast, particularly the NYC metro area, it's WAY more a competition for entertainment thing.

edit: And I'd guess we have a very high percentage of people who either go to college locally and then move away or go to college elsewhere and then move into the area.

I think the diversity of this area has to be far greater than the average ACC or SEC powerhouse area.

Or they go to small schools/academic ones that aren't D1-A and so, as a result, don't care. Or they're nominal players in the D1 game.

[I. J. Reilly]

For the NFL guys who seem to be struggling to understand the college game, the important thing to understand is that the national polls and even the national championship are a side show to the real deal. Conference play is what matters. It’s regularly referred to as the mythical national championship because it’s not that big of a deal. Sure, if your team is in it you desperately want them to win. But by that point of the season all of the important things have already happened, you’ve won your league, beaten your rival and set yourself up for a great year of recruiting. A BCS title is just icing on the cake.

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

For the NFL guys who seem to be struggling to understand the college game, the important thing to understand is that the national polls and even the national championship are a side show to the real deal. Conference play is what matters. It’s regularly referred to as the mythical national championship because it’s not that big of a deal. Sure, if your team is in it you desperately want them to win. But by that point of the season all of the important things have already happened, you’ve won your league, beaten your rival and set yourself up for a great year of recruiting. A BCS title is just icing on the cake.

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

Well said. As a Big 10 fan, this is the real reason I don't care for the BCS, because its just too jarring to see Texas playing in the Rose Bowl. Its not that I don't want Texas playing for the national championship - its that that bowl game somehow seems corrupted.

[molson]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

You son of a bitch. (Is what my old classmates at U of O would say. Me, I'm indifferent. In fact, I bet your campus has less dirty hippies).

[MJ4H]

10 tiers of 12 teams each. The winner of tier one is the national champion. 11 game seasons for everyone, evenly matched.

1st place in each division gets promoted to the next tier up for next season. 2nd and 3rd place play a one-off game for another promotion spot. 11 and 12 get demoted.

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Oh and every year the two worst teams get demoted to Div 1AA or whatever and 2 new teams come into the system to try to work their way up.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How's that again?

You can still win your conference without being undefeated as well as without beating an otherwise undefeated team. Did I miss something else you changed somewhere, or was this not supposed to mean what you said?

(FTR, I went through your posts twice to see where this came from before asking, maybe I'm just overlooking it because my concentration is kind of off this afternoon)

Easy, using Michigan as the example, they go 0-3 during their non-conference schedule. They improve after their bye week and run the rest of the table. They go into Columbus and beat a previously unbeaten Ohio State.

Michigan at 9-3 is 9-0 in the conference, whereas OSU is 11-1 with an 8-1 conference record. Michigan gets the bid (and the conference title as they would currently).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Easy, using Michigan as the example, they go 0-3 during their non-conference schedule. They improve after their bye week and run the rest of the table. They go into Columbus and beat a previously unbeaten Ohio State.

Michigan at 9-3 is 9-0 in the conference, whereas OSU is 11-1 with an 8-1 conference record. Michigan gets the bid (and the conference title as they would currently).

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just read that as you saying it was guaranteed to be that way which isn't at all the case.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

While their national title dreams are over, the season isn't over. Michigan's seniors have plenty to play for. They have never beaten Ohio State and they have never won a bowl game. Also, their national title dreams aren't over because of one blocked FG. Their national title dreams are over because they lost to a Division I-AA team, an apparently damn good Division I-AA team, but a I-AA team nonetheless. At home.

So, because they lost to a Div I-AA team, they've been eliminated from achieving great things this season. All the other items you mentioned mean relatively little, aside from winning the Big 10, which is still possible. Isn't it kind of silly that a team that wins the Big 10 with a 11-1 record is completely out of the national title picture?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

They don't. Losing to a Division I-AA team pretty much proved that. While the game came down to the last play, Appalachain St. were the better team that game.

I reckon this hypothetical will again be proven false, perhaps as early as next week. Oregon runs the spread offense. Apparently Michigan is incapable of defending against such an offense.

I'm only using Michigan as my example. For all we know, Appalachian State could be the best team in the country, but we will never know. Part of that is because they are in a separate division. I can accept that, but the fact that Michigan could be (I thought Michigan was overrated going into this year, just for the record) the #2 team in the country and not have a title shot is absurd.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Isn't it kind of silly that a team that wins the Big 10 with a 11-1 record is completely out of the national title picture?

Not at all, since if that Michigan team wons the Big 10 with an 11-1 record, it would prove only that the Big 10 really wasn't much this year. And a Michigan appearance in the national title game this year would reduce the value of the national championship to the lowest point ever.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just read that as you saying it was guaranteed to be that way which isn't at all the case.

Again, wasn't saying that things were guaranteed to be that way, but things are much more interesting and teams have the opportunity to improve throughout the year and become the best team. Even if they have a poor start.

I remember that Colorado team a few years back that smashed Nebraska but got left out of the title game. I truly think that team was the best team in the country at that point, but we never got to answer that question because they were left out of the system.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

Yes, yes I did. I just wish it could be made to work.

[bbgunn]

What should happen is that the NFL should start a minor league/farm system for 18-22 year olds. I guarantee THAT would cause some good changes to college football. Plus the kids would legitimately get paid, instead of working (READ: not working) at some local car dealer between college games.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Again, wasn't saying that things were guaranteed to be that way, but things are much more interesting and teams have the opportunity to improve throughout the year and become the best team. Even if they have a poor start.

I remember that Colorado team a few years back that smashed Nebraska but got left out of the title game. I truly think that team was the best team in the country at that point, but we never got to answer that question because they were left out of the system.

But your system is also going to leave out teams that could be the best in the country. You're going to give playoff berths to generally inferior conferences. Sure they may occasionally have a title worthy team ala Boise St., but most of the time they simply won't be as good as the second place team in the SEC or Big10.

[TroyF]

1) Any playoff "system" is going to leave out some teams. But would I rather deal with the 17th and 18th ranked teams bitching about their shot vs. the 3rd and 4th? Yes.

2) The playoff or lack there of isn't why I prefer the NFL game. I enjoy the skill and strategy of the NFL a lot more. I enjoy the gameplay more.

3) I've resigned myself to the fact that a playoff will never happen. It sucks IMO, but that's the way it is. I've given up on the fight for one. You'll never convince someone who isn't for it that they should be and more importantly, you'll never convince the NCAA. (no matter how one sided the polls are in favor of one) It's a waste of time to even bother with it.

4) As I said earlier, I still appreciate and watch the college game. It's fun cheering for your school (or the school you grew up cheering for). There are some amazing plays and the enthusiasm is unmatched in the NFL. Still, I prefer the NFL game.

5) Happy fighting.

[k0ruptr]

I just skimmed through this thread, but I didnt see anything mentioned about how Michigan said uhm Hell No to Hawaii for the first game of the season (in Michigan btw) . I just think that is plain awesome. No we don't want Hawaii, cuz we want a 1-AA easy win on the schedule.

[Pumpy Tudors]

YEA WELL SETON HILL MIGHT AS WELL BE BOWL SUBDIVISION I-A BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE WVIAC CHAMPIONSHIP YET SINCE WE JUST MOVED UP TO D-II LAST YEAR SO NO PLAYOFFS FOR US GO GRIFFINS OK lol hawaii

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

I just skimmed through this thread, but I didnt see anything mentioned about how Michigan said uhm Hell No to Hawaii for the first game of the season (in Michigan btw) . I just think that is plain awesome. No we don't want Hawaii, cuz we want a 1-AA easy win on the schedule.

I don't think that's how it went down exactly.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not at all, since if that Michigan team wons the Big 10 with an 11-1 record, it would prove only that the Big 10 really wasn't much this year. And a Michigan appearance in the national title game this year would reduce the value of the national championship to the lowest point ever.

You're missing the point of my argument. Let's say Michigan lost to Boise State at home. Boise State goes undefeated. That would not say anything negative about the Big 10.

Also, the point of my system is to take the discussion out of the system. We talk about who we think is the best team, but we do not see it played out on the field. The system I proposed forces the teams to actually win something. They have to win their conference. If a team feels that the best way to prepare for that is to play the toughest teams in the country and risk a loss, they are rewarded for that, rather than punished. At the end of the season, you have a tournament of champions rather than a tournament of teams that we think are really good.

Why is it that we can accept an 83-79 baseball team being the champions last year? Yet, nearly every CFB title is disputed to some extent. There is always discussion about it. The reason is simple, it is not settled on the field. If a team cannot win their conference (especially with many have the conference title games), they should not be in the national title debate.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

10 tiers of 12 teams each. The winner of tier one is the national champion. 11 game seasons for everyone, evenly matched.

1st place in each division gets promoted to the next tier up for next season. 2nd and 3rd place play a one-off game for another promotion spot. 11 and 12 get demoted.

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Oh and every year the two worst teams get demoted to Div 1AA or whatever and 2 new teams come into the system to try to work their way up.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

What about about splitting the 10 tiers up into regions.

Using MattJones4Heisman's example, how about an east and west region with 5 tiers each. Since the 1st place teams are getting an automatic promotion (except in the very top east and west tier), they can play the other region's top team at the same tier in a bowl game. Add in the 8 regional promotion bowl games between the 2nd and 3rd place teams for a total of 13 somewhat meaningful bowl games.

Or, you could go with 3 or 4 regions and even less tiers per region.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Well said. As a Big 10 fan, this is the real reason I don't care for the BCS, because its just too jarring to see Texas playing in the Rose Bowl. Its not that I don't want Texas playing for the national championship - its that that bowl game somehow seems corrupted.

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming.

With the BCS around the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions can't return to their (use to be) regularly scheduled programming in the Rose Bowl.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming.

Those weren’t Rose Bowl’s; they were bowl games that happened to be played in Pasadena.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Those weren’t Rose Bowl’s; they were bowl games that happened to be played in Pasadena.

Somebody totally should have told the Tournament of Roses committee. They really screwed up when they had the grounds crew paint "Rose Bowl Game" on the field and when they approved this:

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Again, growing up in the northeast it's always been pro sports. If I grew up in another area maybe I'd have a go gators bumper sticker or something.

The northeast simply does not have the same kind of relationship with its state universities that most of the rest of the country does.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

No need to go too far down this well-travelled road, but pretty much every playoff system that I have seen suggested would also include similar arguments or debate about which teams should get into the playoffs and which teams should not.

Even in college basketball, where you have a 64+ team field, there's a debate about "bubble" teams. The debate is often very similar to that in college football about "impressive" wins and the like.

The big difference is this: In college football right now, there is a realistic probability that a team that is not in the championship game would win the championship.

The more teams you include in the tournament, the smaller the chances that one of the teams that's left out could actually win the thing.

Considering any realistic college football playoff would probably include something like 8 teams, the debate would be much more intense.

Maybe so, but at that point most would concede that team number nine wouldn't have a very good chance of winning the championship.

Personally, I think a 16-team playoff is even better than eight, and that would make the chances of excluding a championship team minimal.

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I don't think that's how it went down exactly.

your right, It went down a lil diffrently (and maybe even more funny!)

Michigans Athletic director approached us for the game, our athletic director was a lil hesitent, but after talking to June and ass ath director, he decided sure why not lets play Mich in Mich. Then when your AD approached Lloyd Carr, Lloyd Carr said Hell no, hahahahaha.

[k0ruptr]

Dola, just so you don't feel bad, Appalachin St. turned Hawaii down also for the sept 1st game.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

The northeast simply does not have the same kind of relationship with its state universities that most of the rest of the country does.

Who in the northeast has a state university that plays 1-A football? Rutgers and UConn and Penn State. Rutgers was mediocre or worse for ever, UConn was 1-AA until about 5 years ago, and Penn State is one of the elite programs.

As it is tho, there are just too many other pro sports teams for any college program to really break thru.

[SFL Cat]

First, I'm a college football fan. I like the passion in the game and a majority of the guys play at this level because they love the game. Let's face it, this is as far as most of these kids will go with their football careers.

That said, if colleges really gave a damn about academic standards of their college players, then they'd do something like raise the GPA needed to play sports (i.e. 2.5 or 3.0). Of course, most schools would howl about unfairness since a lot of the star athletes (especially football and basketball players) can barely read or write.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

What is Penn State?

Oh and that Temple powerhouse

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Somebody totally should have told the Tournament of Roses committee. They really screwed up when they had the grounds crew paint "Rose Bowl Game" on the field and when they approved this:

I think he meant, they are not traditional Rose Bowl matchups.