The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Oh My! This should shake up the rankings. Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? Can they? Yes they will Should they? Now that's the question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 Can they? Yes they willShould they? Now that's the question... Undefeated team beats the #4 team (that was #1 for 5 or 6 weeks). Anything less than #3 is a travesty. Actually, I would say #2 SHOULD be a given...but, it is unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Oh My! This should shake up the rankings. Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? begs the question why are there not playoffs in Div I football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Utah destroyed 'Bama. BCS rankings are a joke. We need a playoff. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 begs the question why are there not playoffs in Div I football? I can think of $everal million rea$on$ why Div I $chools don't want a playoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I can think of $everal million rea$on$ why Div I $chools don't want a playoff Splain that to me Slash. Would the networks give less if an 8 team playoff was established? Would the bowls be adversly affected if this played out over 3 weekends? You've got to be right, but I just can't figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Splain that to me Slash. Would the networks give less if an 8 team playoff was established? Would the bowls be adversly affected if this played out over 3 weekends? You've got to be right, but I just can't figure it out. There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I know it's a tired discussion, but they REALLY need a friggin playoff. The argument that the athletes would miss too much time from school is nonsense considering how long the bowl season is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams... I still don't understand. Are all of these minor bowl making money? If they are, can't they still exist and host the crappy teams they currently host? The teams in the International Bowl, for example, have no hopes of being #1 or #8, so how does a playoff impact that bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 There were 34 Bowl Games this year An 8 team playoff system would be a cash cow for the 8 teams that made it in. But not for the other 60 teams... Why can't you have your cake and eat it too? I mean it's not like the vast majority of those bowl games have any bearing on the national championship picture. So with the playoffs you could still have the bowl matchups for the teams that don't get into the playoff and still have the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 Also, the big pain in the ass bowl, is the Rose Bowl. The rest of the schools should want that bowl knocked down a peg, out of general principle. the fact that USC gets a home bowl game almost every year, should be offensive to the NCAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Does the NCAA have any idea how much money they would make if they had a playoff system? They have 34 bowl games which means 68 teams are eligible for post season play. Thats more teams than in the college basketball tournament. They should do exactly like basketball, pick 64 teams, and have them play from the end of the season in early December and play until mid January. Thats 6 weekends of post season play. All the higher seeds would play at their home stadium. Then you could have the national championship in a neutral sight. Does this make enough sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 UTAH!!!! What a spanking! Utes rock. Makes it hard to believe there isn't a playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I still don't understand. Are all of these minor bowl making money? If they are, can't they still exist and host the crappy teams they currently host? The teams in the International Bowl, for example, have no hopes of being #1 or #8, so how does a playoff impact that bowl? Yeah, that's where I always get stuck. The other bowls wouldn't suffer one bit. The way it is today only 2 teams have a shot at the 'championship', yet those other bowls survive and teams are happy to play in them. Start a playoff and suddenly you have 8 teams with a chance to win it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 Does the NCAA have any idea how much money they would make if they had a playoff system? They have 34 bowl games which means 68 teams are eligible for post season play. Thats more teams than in the college basketball tournament. They should do exactly like basketball, pick 64 teams, and have them play from the end of the season in early December and play until mid January. Thats 6 weekends of post season play. All the higher seeds would play at their home stadium. Then you could have the national championship in a neutral sight. Does this make enough sense? Or, you could use the existing bowls for the games, instead of home fields...that's how you protect the current bowl games. The crappy bowls could host the early games...that still has to be better for them than what they get now. But, there is no chance of a 64 team playoff, IMO...and it really isn't necessary. I'd be happy with an 8-team playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'd be happy with an 8-team playoff. ...and then the #9 ranked team would be whining and moaning that they didn't get into the playoff. You're not going to satisfy everyone, even if there is a playoff. BTW, I tend to agree with you, Dean. An 8 team playoff, with the existence of the other bowls unaffected, is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 the playoff system is enough of a pipedream. there is no way they would or could make it a 64 team playoff. it would most likely be an 8 team "post-season" and mike is right, that just shifts the complaining down to the teams ranked 9, 10 and 11. and i think they would still most likely keep all of the other bowl games. i like the bowl system. not for its fairness of picking a champion, but because it gives me a lot of "meaningful" games to watch. id still prefer that they move the majority of the games back to Jan. 1, but whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 ...and then the #9 ranked team would be whining and moaning that they didn't get into the playoff. You're not going to satisfy everyone, even if there is a playoff. BTW, I tend to agree with you, Dean. An 8 team playoff, with the existence of the other bowls unaffected, is the way to go. Of course the #9 team will whine...but, they weren't going to be #1 under any circumstances, after the bowls, so it doesn't impact the Championship. (Utah, this year, really tested that theory, though, as they were #7 in some polls.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Of course the #9 team will whine...but, they weren't going to be #1 under any circumstances, after the bowls, so it doesn't impact the Championship. (Utah, this year, really tested that theory, though, as they were #7 in some polls.) saying that a lower ranking team "wouldnt have been #1 anyways" flies in the face of the entire point of the playoff system. its so the teams ranked 7 and 8 have a shot of showing everyone they are for real. why not 9 and 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 But, there is no chance of a 64 team playoff, IMO...and it really isn't necessary. I'd be happy with an 8-team playoff. A 64 team playoff isn't feasible. That's what, a 6 round playoff? I know college basketball does it but the teams play multiple games per week, not exactly something football players should do. I'd also be happy with an 8 team (or even 16) team playoff. But there is too much money in the bowl system for the schools or the sponsors to want to mess with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 A 64 team playoff isn't feasible. That's what, a 6 round playoff? I know college basketball does it but the teams play multiple games per week, not exactly something football players should do. I'd also be happy with an 8 team (or even 16) team playoff. But there is too much money in the bowl system for the schools or the sponsors to want to mess with i bet the money can be shifted around so its basically the same. youd just have the companies who sponsor the lesser bowls sponsoring the first round of the playoffs, working your way up to whoever has the national championship that year. the small bowls will hardly be effected since no one is really watching them as it is. how many people watched the Humanitarian Bowl between Maryland and Nevada? For that matter, how many people from Maryland went to tropical Boise, Idaho on 12/30? Roady's can still sponsor that bowl... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 For that matter, how many people from Maryland went to tropical Boise, Idaho on 12/30? Another good point How many people from Maryland would go to tropical Boise for round one? Then to cosmopolitan Detroit for round two and third-world Miami for round three? Speaking of tropical Boise, remember how Ball St turned down a bowl invitation? The big time programs (with the big time endowments and an army of alum) like Penn St, USC, Florida, Texas, etc wouldn't have a problem filling the stadiums in all the exotic playoff locations. But smaller schools like Maryland and even Utah might struggle. Then there's the Ball State and Buffalo and Florida Atlantic type programs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 saying that a lower ranking team "wouldnt have been #1 anyways" flies in the face of the entire point of the playoff system. No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 IMO the first step has to be making sure all the conferences play a championship game. Decide the winner of the conference on the field, and put all the conference winners into the playoff. No conference championship (or no conference) = tough luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 IMO the first step has to be making sure all the conferences play a championship game. Decide the winner of the conference on the field, and put all the conference winners into the playoff. No conference championship (or no conference) = tough luck. Ask Texas how they feel about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 How many people from Maryland would go to tropical Boise for round one? Then to cosmopolitan Detroit for round two and third-world Miami for round three? A hell of a lot more than would go right now, since in that scenario the game would actually mean something. As it stands now bowl games are completely and utterly meaningless. Nothing more than a bunch of kids who haven't played in a month going through the motions in a scrimmage they have to show up for while they are partying on a year end vacation. They have virtually no entertainment value and they are certainly not any sort of indicator as to the quality of the teams involved. Completely and utterly meaningless. Decide the winner of the conference on the field, and put all the conference winners into the playoff. I think that would be just as bad or worse than the way they (don't) do it now. You'd be leaving the #2/#3 teams in the SEC/Big12/etc at home; meanwhile you'd be inviting garbage teams from the ACC/WAC/etc who'd have been below .500 if they'd played an SEC schedule. Those 4th tier teams would have no business whatsoever playing in a limited playoff system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 A hell of a lot more than would go right now, since in that scenario the game would actually mean something.As it stands now bowl games are completely and utterly meaningless. Nothing more than a bunch of kids who haven't played in a month going through the motions in a scrimmage they have to show up for while they are partying on a year end vacation. They have virtually no entertainment value and they are certainly not any sort of indicator as to the quality of the teams involved. Completely and utterly meaningless. i disagree with your assessment of what the bowl games mean to the players. for the majority of college players, a bowl game is their last hurrah as a football player. it gives the players from smaller programs something to play for, which makes college football better than the "its all about me" professional game. the players on UB and UConn will always have the International Bowl. it will always be a part of their lives, and even though most of them wont go on to play in the pros, theyll always have that bowl game... in the scenario of the (8 team) playoffs, the MD/NV game in Boise is the same since it is not a playoff game. if anything, the playoff system will make people care LESS about any of the other games besides the 7 playoff games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 A 64 team playoff isn't feasible. That's what, a 6 round playoff? I know college basketball does it but the teams play multiple games per week, not exactly something football players should do. I'd also be happy with an 8 team (or even 16) team playoff. But there is too much money in the bowl system for the schools or the sponsors to want to mess with You would be asking players to continue practicing for up to what? - 3 more weeks. And travel. Most of these kids won't even sniff an NFL camp. They need to tend to their education and their future careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I agree that there should be a playoff tourney like I-AA, D-II, and D-III have. All of them have 16 team tourneys where the conference champs on major conferences go, and a few of the higher ranking teams that didn't win their conferences. I-AA is upping their tourney to 20 teams which would weed out the weaker conference champs and have the top 10-14 ranked teams left (barring upsets). This means that the top 12 would have a bye. This where I think I-A should be at. If you start the tourney on the second week of december. You can end the tourney in the middle of January. I understand that ending the playoffs in January can be problematic. So, you can either shorten the season (focus on academics), or start the season earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Ask Texas how they feel about that... Texas got hosed by being left out of the Big 12 championship, thanks to the conference's 5th tiebreaker, the BCS standings. (Of course the conf. says they are going to revisit that tiebreaker in the offseason). There's always going to be teams that get hosed and can make a case for inclusion. I think that would be just as bad or worse than the way they (don't) do it now.You'd be leaving the #2/#3 teams in the SEC/Big12/etc at home; meanwhile you'd be inviting garbage teams from the ACC/WAC/etc who'd have been below .500 if they'd played an SEC schedule. Those 4th tier teams would have no business whatsoever playing in a limited playoff system. The idea could be tweaked to add a couple at-large bids and/or make the MAC, Sun Belt, WAC and MWC play-in (or maybe put additional criteria on their inclusion - undefeated record, top-15 ranking, something). Hell, I'd be happy with just having the top 8 teams in the polls in a playoff, but I don't like the idea of some conferences awarding the title based on record while others have that extra game to impact their postseason chances. All I know is the current system does not work and needs to be changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share Posted January 3, 2009 You would be asking players to continue practicing for up to what? - 3 more weeks. And travel. Most of these kids won't even sniff an NFL camp. They need to tend to their education and their future careers. Then, how do they manage to do it in every other level of collegiate ball, where virtually NONE of the players are going to the NFL, and most need to tend to their education, etc. Old argument that doesn't hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Then, how do they manage to do it in every other level of collegiate ball, where virtually NONE of the players are going to the NFL, and most need to tend to their education, etc. Old argument that doesn't hold water. I was referring to adding 3or 4 more weeks. In any event, having a playoff system seems to be yet another barrage of vicarious thrills. Thanks. I need to go out and get one of those 13 dollar gourmet grilled cheese and bacon sandwiches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Oh My! This should shake up the rankings. Can they be ranked any worse than #2 (maybe #3) with this win? Go "anyone" who kicks Saban in the teeth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I can think of $everal million rea$on$ why Div I $chools don't want a playoff Playoff games will still be sponsored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Go "anyone" who kicks Saban in the teeth! what you have against Saban? you from LA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrFishfinder Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 what you have against Saban? you from LA? Nope. I live in My Yami, and while I hate the Dolphins with every molecule in my body, the way Saban lied and slunk out of My Yami was totally classless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Nope. I live in My Yami, and while I hate the Dolphins with every molecule in my body, the way Saban lied and slunk out of My Yami was totally classless. thats partly why i like him. for screwing over miami. meh, i think he's a heck of a coach, and while he definitely mishandled that situation i give him credit for realizing what was important to him and going back to it. ive never seen him in a press conference or interview and thought "what an ass!", he seems pretty stand up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Playoff games will still be sponsored. That's great news for schools that make the playoffs Not so great news for schools that don't make the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 That's great news for schools that make the playoffsNot so great news for schools that don't make the playoffs Why? They still have their meaningless sponsored Bowl games. How is that any different than now? Of course, the way to get the playoff system through, may be through a sharing of part of the revenues with all schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts