Third bowl game REALLY in the works for the MAC

[hammb]

Imagine if half the teams in the NFL were not given the ability to appear in the Super Bowl, regardless of record, before the season even started.

That is the reason I don't like the BCS.

And exactly why you must include all the conference champs.

In my mind you have a 16 team playoff. It takes 4 weeks to complete. You take all the conference champions, and some at large selections to complete the bracket.

Yes, you now have 40 teams that would've gotten bowl berths that are not going to be invited to the tourney. That's fine, allow the bowls to still be played separately a la the NIT tourney in hoops. My proposed 16 team tourney is an actual NCAA sanctioned event, with revenue being split 16 ways and it going to the conferences of affiliation. The conferences such as the MAC & WAC stand to make a LOT more money this way, and I don't think its a huge hit to the BCS conferences either.

The Bowl games, if they wish to continue, are a completely separate venture, not sanctioned by the NCAA (as they are not currently). They will continue to be played so long as it continues to be profitable.

The whole thing seems so simple in my head, but I'm sure I'm missing a LOT of important details.

[transfer2BGSU]

The conferences such as the MAC & WAC stand to make a LOT more money this way, and I don't think its a huge hit to the BCS conferences either.

If it gives money to conferences other than the BcS6, they'll view it as a huge hit.

[Schadenfreude]

The conferences such as the MAC & WAC stand to make a LOT more money this way, and I don't think its a huge hit to the BCS conferences either.

If it gives money to conferences other than the BcS6, they'll view it as a huge hit.

First, I should say I'm pretty much with Hammb. If there must be a playoff, then it needs to be four rounds with automatic conference bids.

And if the MAC is sucking this year, then make our first round game against Southern California or Texas. That's fine. At least we had a chance.

Now, I'm not sure we need a playoff. I'm not sure we need a BCS, or a so-called national title game, or any of that. Never have. I'd rather just nuke it and go back to the old way of doing business. But that's just a pipe dream.

As far as the money: An argument can be made that a 16-team playoff would rake in a ton more money than the existing bowl system. I can't quote studies, but there are some who sincerely believe it. I believe a private television company once offered $1 billion if the NCAA would stage a playoff.

So, in theory, the non-BCS schools could have more equity in a playoff system while not stealing money from the rich, powerful conferences.

Why don't we have a playoff?

Not sure. I assume the problem include academics who think football is already out of control, the bowls (which would get screwed), the coaches (who like to be able to brag about the bowl championships they won rather than the national championships they didn't win) and the rich powerful conferences (who, deep down, probably like to preserve the insanely inequitable system we have).

[1987alum]

Why don't we have a playoff?

Not sure. I assume the problem include academics who think football is already out of control, the bowls (which would get screwed), the coaches (who like to be able to brag about the bowl championships they won rather than the national championships they didn't win) and the rich powerful conferences (who, deep down, probably like to preserve the insanely inequitable system we have).

As usual, your logic is clear. I think a combination of all of the above constitutes the reason there is no playoff.

[MACMAN]

[quote="1987alum"]hammb:

I can understand that perspective. I guess I just don't see the current bowl system as a pandemic that is undermining all of college athletics. It's just not that apocalyptic.



The current system is a total explotation of college football athlets.


I can understand the desire to crown a "true" national champion but, again, just don't think it's a matter of life or death. My biggest concern with the playoff you describe is that it would overcompensate for the perceived deluge of bowls. In short, so many teams would be excluded from having a reasonable hope for playing beyond the regular season that it becomes meaningless to most, especially if we're only talking about conference champions.

Perhaps there is a middle ground, a way that a playoff system could co-exist with a smattering of post-season bowls. I dunno.



There absolutly is a system and its very comprehensive but allow me one second to brife you two possible fair alternatives...where every ones a winer....

I:
1. drop all early occ games,
2. allowing each conference to hold what ever stlye they adopt to determin a con champion by the first or second weekend in NOV
3. To include the best schools all confernce winers are granted one spot and put in to bracket A. all school ranked in the BCS poll that are not confernce winers are placed in bracket B...( now ND and other indpent in this system will have to become part of a conference) The teams from bracket A are randomly assigned to play each other and the teams from bracket B are randomly assigned to play each other.
4. This system would allow forinstance if OSU won the big 11 and M was ranked in the top of the BCs that are none confernce winers to potentially play each other in the National championship game. ending in the championship game on Newyears day.
allowing schools not in the playoff to be matched up, after week one of the playoffs.

II. is more straight forward and is only between conference winers, ending prior to Newyears day, allowing for any of those teams to be matched up in bowls.

it can work, it can be far better, and very very inclusive, and result in a real champion.

But you're right, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I can not see the current system as anything but an explotation of college athletes, discriminatory and none inclusive...giving the few schools all the reward.

[1987alum]

The current system is a total explotation of college football athlets.

And March Madness isn't an explotation of college basketball athletes? Come on, if you're going to pin an argument on something like this, you'd better take a hard look at all revenue-related to college athletics. You're attempting to use hyperbole to make the situation seem easy to fix and your solution look like it's based on humanitarian concerns.

Let's not get carried away.

[MACMAN]

[

Why don't we have a playoff?

Sorry hamb I did not see post, and found it very good...but I would to toss this your way as to why there is no play off.....

Every fan of college footballs knows that there are those teams, those few teams in D1 that are the top...we could argue as to who they are maybe, but if we restricted it those schools that year in and year out are the ....top 20 power houses in college football, we would see much pairity in the lists drawn up. Fair statement?
Now what makes those schools the best....they ultimately ....say over 90% of the time end up with best of the best from the Hs programs. with some exceptions of course, would say that is also a fair statement?
Now why is it when we look at our list of schools that these schools ultimately end up with these kids...what is one thing that could take a top player and make him sign with OSU vs BGSU....is the storied history of OSU...may be that is strong pull....maybe its the number of pros that came from osu vs BGSu....maybe its the lure of playing in the Mich game......BGSu has a storied history...BGSU has had pros...BGSu has the Toledo game...not the 107000 fans "yet" but it has loads of energy...
what is it....
Its this one phrase...
Son if you sign and come play at OSU I garuntee you we will be in the fight for a national championship.

Now...take that phrase away and the whole thing begins to open up....would BGSu or any MAC champion win a National title in play off...probaly not in year one, or two or three...but the light would begin to realy shine in year four...when after four years of being on an even playing field for recruiting players the one phrase is for all...and yes I know OSU is huge and BGSU when it comes to acidemic chooses is more limited than OSU and we can not compete their...but the ball game is the National Championship...and that some conferences are better than others in D1....
Dont think for a min that the schools on the list who controll the BCS in the face of the NCAA dont know it.


and by the way the money statement came out in the senate testimony and the talking heads of the BCS had not one answer to over come it.....

[MACMAN]

The current system is a total explotation of college football athlets.

And March Madness isn't an explotation of college basketball athletes? Come on, if you're going to pin an argument on something like this, you'd better take a hard look at all revenue-related to college athletics. You're attempting to use hyperbole to make the situation seem easy to fix and your solution look like it's based on humanitarian concerns.

Let's not get carried away.

It is.....
Every varsity sport ie Football, basket ball and in some schools hockey, should have every athlet on a full ride...look at the time and sacrifice of each player vs the take in by the school...what next title 9 anyone.

[1987alum]

Now why is it when we look at our list of schools that these schools ultimately end up with these kids...what is one thing that could take a top player and make him sign with OSU vs BGSU....is the storied history of OSU...may be that is strong pull....maybe its the number of pros that came from osu vs BGSu....maybe its the lure of playing in the Mich game......BGSu has a storied history...BGSU has had pros...BGSu has the Toledo game...not the 107000 fans "yet" but it has loads of energy...
what is it....
Its this one phrase...
Son if you sign and come play at OSU I garuntee you we will be in the fight for a national championship.

Once again, you have oversimplified the situation.

Yes BG has a strong history, but does it quite compare to Ohio State's?
Does BG have pro players? Yes, a few. But how can you compare the number of Ohio State players in the NFL to the number of BG players in the NFL and dismiss it as insignificant? Good grief, BG has had 11 players drafted since 1983; Ohio State has had more than 100 since I graduate in 1987.
The Toledo-BG game is a great rivalry, but does it compare to one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports?
And how can you possibly dismiss playing in front of 107,000 people vs. playing in front of 20,000?
To say that decision comes down to being able to say that you'll be in the mix for the national championship is so simple-minded that it boggles my mind.

[1987alum]

It is.....
Every varsity sport ie Football, basket ball and in some schools hockey, should have every athlet on a full ride...look at the time and sacrifice of each player vs the take in by the school...what next title 9 anyone.

And what you're proposing in no way exploits the players any less than the current system. It might crown a true national champion and more evenly distribute money among the schools, but it's still using a means (the players) to get to a goal (money).

[MACMAN]

Now why is it when we look at our list of schools that these schools ultimately end up with these kids...what is one thing that could take a top player and make him sign with OSU vs BGSU....is the storied history of OSU...may be that is strong pull....maybe its the number of pros that came from osu vs BGSu....maybe its the lure of playing in the Mich game......BGSu has a storied history...BGSU has had pros...BGSu has the Toledo game...not the 107000 fans "yet" but it has loads of energy...
what is it....
Its this one phrase...
Son if you sign and come play at OSU I garuntee you we will be in the fight for a national championship.

Once again, you have oversimplified the situation.

Yes BG has a strong history, but does it quite compare to Ohio State's?
Does BG have pro players? Yes, a few. But how can you compare the number of Ohio State players in the NFL to the number of BG players in the NFL and dismiss it as insignificant? Good grief, BG has had 11 players drafted since 1983; Ohio State has had more than 100 since I graduate in 1987.
The Toledo-BG game is a great rivalry, but does it compare to one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports?
And how can you possibly dismiss playing in front of 107,000 people vs. playing in front of 20,000?
To say that decision comes down to being able to say that you'll be in the mix for the national championship is so simple-minded that it boggles my mind.

Why are being such a dork? and drawing such long storied conclusions...
i did NOT say we had identical parity to OSU, you implied it....and yes i did make it simple so you would not hurt yourself comprehending it...but you did anyway Mr. Erudite....
the bottom line is once we make an even playing field in all of D1, after year 4 of such implementation we would see the MAC WAC Sunbelt, Con USA in a much more evenly contested battle for the championship as recruits would no longer be faced with selecing from the current very few powerhouse to reach the lime light and or then have thier playing ability brought in to question because they did not play for a __________ in conference ___________.
that is all.

is this you?
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:O ... t/7700.jpg

[UK Peregrine]

It is.....
Every varsity sport ie Football, basket ball and in some schools hockey,

At the risk of sounding like '87, e gadz! Here goes! Trying to decipher what you just wrote is taxing as hell. First, you say every varsity sport and then proceed to list three. Which is it, every sport or just the three you listed? This "sentence" makes it very difficult to figure out what you're going after in your next statement.

should have every athlet on a full ride...

Now if you are simply implying the three spaorts you listed, then please point me in the direction of a few D1 programs that don't grant the bulk of their student-athletes full-rides. If you're talking about the rest of the student-athletes in college and unversities outside of these three sports, then I guess you saying they all deserve full-rides, but I doubt that was your point. It's just very difficult to follow your train of thought.

look at the time and sacrifice of each player vs the take in by the school...

Not sure what you going at here. Is it that you believe student-athletes work especially hard for a paid education? Is that it? I just don't know. Do all college athletes sacrifice eqaully? Or are some more equal than others, e.g. football, basketball, and hockey.

what next title 9 anyone.

This just seems random as all get out. Do you dislike Title IX? What's the point? Please elaborate a little more as to how Title IX relates to this discussion.

...

Finally, what is this "...". I see this "..." a great deal of the time in your posts. Are you thinking of something that we should be able to understand from "..." or do you just not like completing sentences? I'm sure there is something interesting to get from this post but I for the life of me can't figure out what it is.

[1987alum]

Why are being such a dork?

Ouch. That hurt. Good job advancing the discussion.

and drawing such long storied conclusions...

Because your are using oversimplified statements to make a case for sweeping changes.

i did NOT say we had identical parity to OSU, you implied it.

No, I'm afraid you implied it.

Your comparisons...

...what is one thing that could take a top player and make him sign with OSU vs BGSU....is the storied history of OSU...may be that is strong pull....maybe its the number of pros that came from osu vs BGSu....maybe its the lure of playing in the Mich game......BGSu has a storied history...BGSU has had pros...BGSu has the Toledo game...not the 107000 fans "yet" but it has loads of energy...

Then you imply that that is all a wash, because ...

what is it....
Its this one phrase...
Son if you sign and come play at OSU I garuntee you we will be in the fight for a national championship.

and ...

Now...take that phrase away and the whole thing begins to open up

Your implication, not mine.

..and yes i did make it simple so you would not hurt yourself comprehending it...but you did anyway Mr. Erudite....

Insulting me because I did, in fact, comprehend it, then deconstructed your simple-minded logic does not give your stance any more credence, I'm afraid. Nice try, though.

the bottom line is once we make an even playing field in all of D1, after year 4 of such implementation we would see the MAC WAC Sunbelt, Con USA in a much more evenly contested battle for the championship as recruits would no longer be faced with selecing from the current very few powerhouse to reach the lime light and or then have thier playing ability brought in to question because they did not play for a __________ in conference ___________.
that is all.

And do you think a playoff would do that? I don't think the playing field would necessarily level all that much. Take a look at basketball, which has a much more level playing field in regard to post-season play. We still end up with a relatively small number of teams actually competing for the national title.

[MACMAN]

It is.....
Every varsity sport ie Football, basket ball and in some schools hockey,

At the risk of sounding like '87, e gadz! Here goes! Trying to decipher what you just wrote is taxing as hell. First, you say every varsity sport and then proceed to list three. Which is it, every sport or just the three you listed? This "sentence" makes it very difficult to figure out what you're going after in your next statement.

should have every athlet on a full ride...

YES

Now if you are simply implying the three spaorts you listed, then please point me in the direction of a few D1 programs that don't grant the bulk of their student-athletes full-rides. If you're talking about the rest of the student-athletes in college and unversities outside of these three sports, then I guess you saying they all deserve full-rides, but I doubt that was your point. It's just very difficult to follow your train of thought.

look at the time and sacrifice of each player vs the take in by the school...

Not sure what you going at here. Is it that you believe student-athletes work especially hard for a paid education? yes

what next title 9 anyone.

This just seems random as all get out. Do you dislike Title IX? no not random ....it is where where these conversations always seem to end up when funding and football are spoken....and since you asked i support the spirit of the title that women need and deserve an equal opurtunity in sports...but my issue is that the % of men who wish to pursue athletics is higher than the % of women, therefore i have always felt women should have a higher number of scholastic opurtunites than men but...i can not complain about the good womens sports growth and teams and that BGSU is very fortunate to have so many great women athlets...and I am hoping BGSU gets on the stick and implements a womens hockey team to complement our mens program.

Finally, what is this "...". I see this "..." a great deal of the time in your posts. Are you thinking of something that we should be able to understand from "..." or do you just not like completing sentences? I'm sure there is something interesting to get from this post but I for the life of me can't figure out what it is.

This ..... is me pausing....while I type....between being dyslexic and this.... you should have seen how times on a typewriter i would have to retype papers!!!!!!!!! But alais now I can edit in real time...and well...do some spelling checks, and little to no punctuation on BB's. Sorry for the frustration...good new is i am working on implementing a dictation device for word...but it is frustrating and slow. i will work on this for you since you seem geniunly frustrated, ok?

[MACMAN]

And do you think a playoff would do that? I don't think the playing field would necessarily level all that much. Take a look at basketball, which has a much more level playing field in regard to post-season play. We still end up with a relatively small number of teams actually competing for the national title.[/quote]


Yes.
But you offer a fair and valid point and argument as to how level the field would become...interesting.