BGSU33 wrote:
Good points, but that's what is so confusing about these proposed systems, there are many "ideas" of what it should look like and there isn't a set system we could use. There's the plus-1, the mix of playoffs and bowls, a straight up playoff, etc. The bottom line is, we're never going to have a system that everyone will like. I don't think our system is broke, I just think it's been f'ed up by the BCS tweaking it, then not liking what the computers tell them they get. These computers don't pull these figures out of thin air, they are programmed to produce what they do. This year, I think it worked very well. But next year, it could be like last season, which is why I would be for keeping the bowls and using the plus-1.
Personally, I don't even see that it's that confusing or that there are different ideas. You do it exactly like the NCAA hoops tourney. Remember right now the NCAA has NO sanctioned football postseason, similar to how they didn't used to have a sanctioned basketball postseason.
Create a football tournament exactly like the NCAA tournament. Take all the conference champions and fill up the bracket with at large bids. I would limit it to 16 teams, personally, as that should be plenty.
If the Bowls want to keep their games as a separate entity (which they already are) I don't see a problem with it. Most of them are played on weekdays anyway, so if you played the tournament on Saturdays they wouldn't even overlap much. The bowls, like the former NIT, operate fully separate from the NCAA. Let them continue operating, just like the NIT does currently.
The reason why it will never happen is not because it's not a good idea, and not because it's bad for academics. The biggest reason it will not happen is because the money from this tournament would have to go to all the conferences, and not be hoarded by the big boys. The NCAA committee that makes these decisions is composed of university presidents, and they aren't going to want to share that money.
i love this idea and making the bowl teams play eachother during Bowl rematch week the next year. Good teams would have to playe more good teams and it would lead to a greater variety of teams taking bowl trips.
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." --
Albert Einstein
1. Go back to an 11 game season.
2. Season runs from Labor day weekend to the weekend before Thanksgiving (12 weeks).
3. Thanksgiving weekend is Confernece Championship games and bracketing for the 16 game playoff to come.
4. First three weekends in December are the first three rounds of the 16 team playoff.
5. ALL teams, except the two remaining teams, all eligible to play in any Bowl Game.
6. Championship game is rotated between the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta as it is today. All other Bowl games pick their teams as they currently do.
Bowl system and a Playoff co-existing. Why can't this be done? Four teams potentially could play 16 games (11 regular season, 1 conf championship, and either 4 playoff or 3 playoff and a Bowl). Starting next year, a team could play 12 regular season games, conf championship, and a bowl for 14 total. But...
With an 11 game regular season, the sum total of all college football games would be 1,334 under my proposal. Starting next year with the 12 game season, there will be 1,438. So don't tell me it is too many games.
So let me hear it. What's wrong with this system?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
Again, these are all good points, but it's all another reason why I think we should stick with what we have, bowls. We can't even come up with a solution on this board in a small group, which is why it's so hard in a bigger spectrum. So in the meantime, I will continue to enjoy what we currently have and will love it (except for BG not being in it this year), that is - bowl season.
As for the idea of saying we should do exactly what they do in one sport for another, we have to think about that because what works in one, may or may not work in another. In basketball, there are 334 D-1 teams with 65 that go to the NCAA Tournament. In football there at 119 I-A teams with 56 that go to bowl games. In baseball, there are 290 teams with 64 that go to NCAA Regionals. In men's soccer there are X number of teams and 48 go to the NCAA Tournament, in I-AA, II and III football.....you get the idea. Football, especially D-I football, is a different kind of animal, just like trying to balance issues with Title IX. And that's another topic we could go on and on about. But there's no doubt that money also has a big impact on this issue.
BGSU33 wrote:I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.
I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.
Explain to me why you have to limit the number of overall bowls to have a playoff??
The answer. You don't. All the games are meaningless now save one! You can still have a bunch of meaningless bowl games with an 8 team playoff.
If you're going to quote people, at least understand the point being made and don't botch it up when you reply. Where did I say above you have to "limit the number of bowls to have a playoff?" I never said you had to. but I will tell you this much, if it did go to a playoff sytem, we wouldn't have 56 teams playing postseason, I promise you that. You'd be looking at just a fraction of that.
And I completely disagree that bowl games are meaningless except for one! That's a very narrowminded to say. It's true that one of the bowls means more than the others, that's why it's being played for the national championship. But if you think games from Notre Dame-Ohio State through Akron-Memphis are meaningless, then you are only kidding yourself.
Trying to compare what Divisions I-AA, II & III do for postseason compared to what I-A does is like comparing apples to oranges. They're both fruits, but look and taste very different. Bowls work for I-A teams and have provided many teams the opportunity to play for something, even if teams have lost a few games. One of many reasons lower divisions have playoffs is because they couldn't ever support a bowl system. When 20,000 show up for a I-AA national championship game and TV ratings are low compared to many I-A bowl games, or 4,000 people show up for a D-III game, year in and year out every "meaningless" bowl game will surpass those figures.
The bottom line is, whether I-A sticks to bowls or goes to playoffs, there's always going to be room for discussion. But the fact of the matter is, the way it is now and they way it's always been is I-A is about the bowls. And there's no way in hell I'll ever look at a chance for BG to play in a bowl game whether our record is 6-5 or 10-1 as "meaningless." It's a chance to reward our players with a lasting memory, a chance for fans to watch, travel and attend a game against a new opponent, it's a showcases for our school, and it is great for recruiting. That's certainly doesn't sound meaningless to me, but sitting at home with a 10-1 record locked out of a playoff system does.
Ther is absoltuely no reason to change/limit the number of teams that go to bowls if you have a playoff. None!
"Where did I say above you have to "limit the number of bowls to have a playoff?" I never said you had to. but I will tell you this much, if it did go to a playoff sytem, we wouldn't have 56 teams playing postseason, I promise you that. You'd be looking at just a fraction of that." you say...where did I say that....and then you say that..??????
Every game besides USC vsTexas is meaningless in determining the national champion. Why would we not be able to have games meaningless to determine the national champion with a playoff system?
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." --
Albert Einstein
[quote="Germainfitch1"]you say...where did I say that....and then you say that..??????[quote]
Man you are making this confusing....let me explain this once more - in my "original" post, I never said anything about the limit of these games. But in your reply to that post, you made a reference that I did. Go back and read the "original" post, I never said anything about it, you did. Now in my reply to your post, yes, I did say I believe there likely wouldn't be as many teams, but my point is I never stated anything about a limit from the get-go, I only made a comment about it after you said I did from the start, when I didn't. And if that isn't confusing enough, I'm done trying to straighten this out, or trying to figure out a better postseason for D-I football . I say, let's stick with the bowl.
1. Go back to an 11 game season.
2. Season runs from Labor day weekend to the weekend before Thanksgiving (12 weeks).
3. Thanksgiving weekend is Confernece Championship games and bracketing for the 16 game playoff to come.
4. First three weekends in December are the first three rounds of the 16 team playoff.
5. ALL teams, except the two remaining teams, all eligible to play in any Bowl Game.
6. Championship game is rotated between the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta as it is today. All other Bowl games pick their teams as they currently do.
Bowl system and a Playoff co-existing. Why can't this be done? Four teams potentially could play 16 games (11 regular season, 1 conf championship, and either 4 playoff or 3 playoff and a Bowl). Starting next year, a team could play 12 regular season games, conf championship, and a bowl for 14 total. But...
With an 11 game regular season, the sum total of all college football games would be 1,334 under my proposal. Starting next year with the 12 game season, there will be 1,438. So don't tell me it is too many games.
BGSU33 wrote:I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.
I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.
Explain to me why you have to limit the number of overall bowls to have a playoff??
The answer. You don't. All the games are meaningless now save one! You can still have a bunch of meaningless bowl games with an 8 team playoff.
Ummm yes you did....."And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65."
Why would the MAC be limited to one team if you were not implying less bowls?
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." --
Albert Einstein
BGSU33 wrote:I'm probably not in the majority here, but I actually like the bowls and would rather have them over a playoff in I-A. Being a fan of the MAC, having two and likely three bowls next season for 12 teams to compete for postseason play in is good news to me. And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65.
I do like the idea of the "plus-1" with the bowl system though. But I'll take the bowls over a straight playoff. But I do think the "plus-1" is a good idea and one I would be in favor of if a change was to be made.
Explain to me why you have to limit the number of overall bowls to have a playoff??
The answer. You don't. All the games are meaningless now save one! You can still have a bunch of meaningless bowl games with an 8 team playoff.
Ummm yes you did....."And although last year was quirky, we landed five teams in bowl games last season. If you enter a playoff, the MAC is looking at one team in, and that puts us in the same problem we've been in for men's basketball with a field of 65."
Why would the MAC be limited to one team if you were not implying less bowls?
I don't even have the energy to explain this, again.....I know what I said, I typed it and see it for myself, but I don't think you and I are even talking about the same thing anymore.....I'm talking about an 8, 16 or 32 team playoff system. If that was the case, I do not feel the MAC would have nearly the opportunity it does in the current bowl system. If this system would have multiple-MAC teams involved, then maybe I'd be for it, but with the number of BCS schools out there, I can't see it happening. Thus my point, I support the way it has and has always been with the bowls, and I hope it continues. If BG were in a BCS conference, I might see it otherwise.
Explain to me why you couldnt have a 16 team playoff and then have the bowls who are not involved in the playoff have a game themselves? Why can't you have the 16 team playoff plus the bowls today that are "meaningless" to the national title game? Why?
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." --
Albert Einstein
'87, wouldn't you rather debate this issue, as we do EVERY SINGLE YEAR, than rehash our failures this past year again? I know I would. Heck, I think you & I should keep a binder of our arguments and then we wouldn't have to think anymore, we could just paste them up here when the time arose
Seriously, I'd rather talk about this topic right now than the size of our DL, the failures of our coaching staff, or the possibilities of losing our star player...of course that's just me.
In the end it doesn't matter what any of us want, because I don't see a major change coming anytime soon. Some more recruiting news would certainly help pick things up a bit.
Germainfitch1 wrote:Explain to me why you couldnt have a 16 team playoff and then have the bowls who are not involved in the playoff have a game themselves? Why can't you have the 16 team playoff plus the bowls today that are "meaningless" to the national title game? Why?
I'm not saying you couldn't have that setup....again, I think we got off on the wrong foot long ago and we aren't talking about the same thing nor are we on the same page (which frankly, fits this topic). So does that answer your questions why? I hope so, becauset seriously, I cannot keep going on and on with this debate any longer....so I am now going to try sticking a fork in one ear and see if it will come out the other.........
'87, wouldn't you rather debate this issue, as we do EVERY SINGLE YEAR, than rehash our failures this past year again? I know I would. Heck, I think you & I should keep a binder of our arguments and then we wouldn't have to think anymore, we could just paste them up here when the time arose
Seriously, I'd rather talk about this topic right now than the size of our DL, the failures of our coaching staff, or the possibilities of losing our star player...of course that's just me.
In the end it doesn't matter what any of us want, because I don't see a major change coming anytime soon. Some more recruiting news would certainly help pick things up a bit.
Good point, hammb.
Carry on ...
Hey, look at me! I'm all over the InterWebs! Facebook ~ Twitter @ CoachKarlPA ~ LinkedIn
98 BG Grad, the question here is... would you rather see the Colts in the Superbowl despite the thrawling they took against Pittsburgh? College footbal is quite unfair and who cares if a so-called #1 and #2 plays at the end of the season. This methodology speaks nothing but unfairness. They pick the #1 and #2 before the season even starts, how can you come to such a conclusion before anyone has even put on pads. I'll tell you how, the BCS founders make it this way to fool US year after year since College Football is predicated off of recruiting. How do you get top recruits? You advertise well, how do you advertise well? You make a ton of cash to cover the expense.
The MAC goes into debt every year which makes us look pretty bad to top recruits, not to mention our inability to upgrade or produce state of the art facilities! You will have to dig a little more into the College football thing. I love this sport more than any other on the planet and that's why it frustrates me so much. Also the mention of seeing matchups that we would otherwise not see is so untrue as well. If there were a playoff system in place the never before seen matchups would be far greater than they are now. Stop being so naive and read up on why congress has to step in! It's called anti-trust violations and it's been going on for years.
. I say, let's stick with the bowl.
