|
|
The BCS killed the bowl system. Up and until its creation, big time bowl games always sold out, but once the emphasis was put on one game every year and the big bowl games were moved off of January 1st, people stopped caring and empty seats are now seen at most BCS bowl games these days.
Probably true, although I think right around that time we also got a bunch more bowl games. For most of the 80s and 90s it was right around 20 Bowl games. It may have been about 25 games around the time the BCS started. Since then it's gone up to 35 games.Originally Posted by TideatMilehigh
What does that have to do with your argument about 35 bowl games hurting the regular season? That's what my response was addressing. I don't like the bowl system but it has very little to do with harming the regular season in my opinion. Maybe I would have a different feeling if I were a fan of a mid-major. As an OU fan, if there was only 1 bowl game, the NC game, it would all feel the same. Again, after a loss I never say "at least they can still make a bowl game".
I agree 100% with you that there are way too many bowls tho...just for different reasons I guess.
More teams being a post season hurts the regular season. It does for just about any sport.
Sure if your postseason is a tournament. When there is still only a 2 team playoff for the NC then you could have every school play in a bowl game and it wouldn't hurt the regular season when your goal is a NC. As an OU fan, that's always what I look forward to...not what lower tier bowl OU can still qualify for. The expansion of bowl games has in no way diminished my feelings towards college football's regular season. I watch most every game that has NC implications as much as I would if there were only 1 bowl game.
I'm all for a 4 team playoff but in many years, wouldn't we just end up arguing who the 4th team in is instead of arguing who the 2nd team in is? Same basic concept. So where do you draw the line? I mean most years there are people complaining about being left out of the NCAA basketball tournament and they take like 250 now I believe.
I agree the BCS has already screwed up the bowl system. I know I used to like bowl games but these days I am honestly burned out and not that interested once the bowl games come around. That and only one bowl game is meaningful now.
The BCS didn't ruin the bowls all by itself. The fact that there's too many bowls did a lot to ruin them. Bowls used to be over by January 1. Now there's just way too many bowls and too much time between the regular season and the bowls - at least the good bowls. I know stuff like the E-surance bowl starts on December 19. But the good bowls don't get started until new years.
There are four options under consideration for what college football's postseason will look like beginning in 2014.
Well, make that three legitimate options. Go ahead and eliminate the comical "four teams plus" model that featured the Rose Bowl as one of three semifinal games.
The remaining options that will be discussed this week in South Florida by the 11 FBS commissioners, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, the BCS' lawyers and television consultants are different variations of a one-game final (similar to the current BCS) or a four-team playoff.
There are challenges of deciding on a four-team format, like deciding if the field should be limited to conference champions only (which still hasn't been discussed at great length yet, sources said). Another concern is how the major bowl games could be affected by a four-team playoff.
Taking those challenges into consideration, the original "plus-one" model -- one game played after the bowl games are completed -- would probably present the fewest headaches, industry sources told CBSSports.com.
Except for one major negative.
"There would be such an outcry from the public and the media if we went with a one-game final because the four-team [playoff] is so far out there," a commissioner said.
Officially, there has been no decision what format will be used in 2014. But with what the BCS officially calls the "four-team event" the most likely format, the next decision is if the semifinals will be played on campus or at neutral sites/bowl sites. By the way, they did not refer to the "four-team event" as a "playoff" in their official memo obtained by USA Today so here's hoping their "four-team event" has more success than NBC's sci-fi drama The Event, which was cancelled after one season.
Holding the semifinal games on campus received a lot of early support, especially from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. In a poll of the 11 commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick by CBSSports.com last month, the respondents slightly favored holding the semifinal games on campus.
The biggest proponents mentioned that semifinal games on campus would guarantee full stadiums, reward the top two teams with home-field advantage -- you know, like the NFL does it -- and would alleviate travel concerns for fans having to travel cross country for a semifinal one week and a final game the next.
Some commissioners were concerned that if the semifinals were not played on campus sites, then the semifinal games would have attendance issues, similar to the NCAA basketball tournament's regional final round, where some fans won't spend the money to go to a regional, but instead wait to see if their team makes the Final Four. Some commissioners felt football fans would do the same: refuse to travel to a neutral-site semifinal because they were waiting to travel to the final.
Another issue would be inconsistent revenue numbers based on what schools would play host to the semifinals. This certainly wouldn't be an issue if teams with home stadiums with capacities of at least 100,000 -- such as Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State, Alabama and Texas -- hosted a semifinal, but what if a semifinal were played at a stadium with a capacity of 55,000 or less such as Stanford, Oregon, Boise State or TCU?
BCS executive director Bill Han**** has said there are questions about whether some college campuses had the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the crush of fans and media attending a college football semifinal.
"The infrastructure needed on campus is significant," Han**** told the ****ociated Press. "That's a factor. That's just one example of the intricacies that are part of this."
One commissioner, who is against semifinal games being played on campus, said: "The NCAA [men's basketball] tournament doesn't have campus games, do they?"
No, they don't. And it appears that the 2014 playoff model won't either. The Chicago Tribune reported Sunday that holding the semifinal games on campus sites "is on life support."
The biggest negative -- the only negative? -- about holding semifinal games at a neutral or bowl site would be the travel challenges/difficulties for some fans. Still, I find it hard to believe that a national semifinal college football game played at one of the existing BCS bowl sites or a neutral site -- or heck, even on the moon for that matter -- would not result in a sold-out stadium.
The semifinal games could be rotated among the existing BCS bowl sites (New Orleans; Pasadena, Calif.; Miami Gardens, Fla.; or Glendale, Ariz.) or be selected through a bid process to either the BCS sites or other neutral sites, such as Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Tampa, Atlanta, or San Diego.
Whether the semifinals were played on campus or at neutral or bowl sites, the final most likely would be selected through a bid process at a BCS bowl or neutral site, setting up the highly anticipated culmination of the FBS's inaugural college football "four-team event." The BCS prefers that you don't call it a playoff.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...als-off-campus
The following users like this post: DirtySouth_Sooner
I fail to see why you cant have both a playoff with the actual contenders (4-8 teams) and still maintain bowls for the rest of the losers. Why cant they have both? What am I missing here?
Because most years there arent more than 4 teams who could make a legit claim to be legit contenders. I.e. every undefeated and 1 loss team. IT would only be a problem in years where you have 6 or 7 one loss teams. Then again, that situation would be a problem in the current set up too. In the end what really should not be a problem, what shouldnt be an issue is crowning the winner of a single game as the undisputed champion- and the only real way to do that is through a playoff. The only effect voters have is which teams are in the playoff- but as i said, rare is it that any more than 4 (or 8 teams) could even have a legit claim to being able to play for all the marbles. So the big named 0 and 1 loss teams have a legit stake, but a mid major with 1 loss, or a big name program with 2- sorry youre out. I think weve only had one 2 loss champion.
I think any such game should be at Arrowhead stadium.
Hard to get more neutral than that.
They really need to cut the BCS and the bowls out of this. They are no value added, yet take a huge portion of the revenue taht should be going to the schools.
Yes, I would prefer just about anything over the ridiculous 5 week wait we have now.
The more teams you have in the playoff, the LESS persuasive this argument becomes. The more chances to get in, the less right you have to **** about getting left out. To me, I think any team taht wins its conference has a legitimate argument to get in. You can't compare the champion of the big 10 to the pac 12 to the SEC, because those teams don't play each other.
The following users like this post: SoonerTank
**** playoffs!
Those BCS **** will go to any lengths not to call it playoffs to save face. I like the rotation of BSC bowls as long as the close down that dump in Glendale and make the Cotton Bowl BCS.
3 users like DirtySouth_Sooner's post: cdw1212, logan, usaosooner
No one, to my knowledge, has even proposed a playoff yet.
Admin: please merge this thread with the other playoff threads.
They won't be shutting down the Fiesta, but the Cotton in all likelihood will become the 5th BCS Bowl.
2 users like SleestakkSooner's post: DarrellS011, DirtySouth_Sooner
Well, isn't the article about a four team format ... which is ... a four team playoff. Call it what you want but its a playoff by definition.
I think THAT is what killed the bowl system. I remember growing up you had to actually be a decent team to make a bowl. Making a bowl was synonymous with making the NCAA tourney in basketball...it marked a successful season. Now you just need a .500 record, and since most BCS conference teams play 4 doormats in non-con, you can go 3-7 in conference every year and make a bowl game. Ridiculous. They should cut the number of bowls in half. WTH are there 3-4 bowls in Dallas alone?
Yes. The bowls are so watered down now because so many teams get in. 2/3 of the bowls hold little interest. It would be equivalent to expanding the NFL by 30 teams. Sure the top players would still play, but it would dramatically water down the league and ruin it.
For those of us old enough to remember football pre-90s, it sucks that New Years Day is now meaningless. It used to mean dragging the TVs from the other rooms into one room and watching all of the top games in one long, awesome day. Now you are lucking to see one good game, then you can watch the next good bowl on Jan 4th, then the 7th or so on a Tuesday, etc.
REALLY? WOW THAT IS SO AMAZING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VALUED INPUT. CHODE.
It is not a playoff by definition. It is a post-season tournament. No one has proposed a playoff. Everyone keeps saying they want a playoff, then they lay out their plan and it isn't a playoff at all.
As of today it looks like only using conference champions and hosting games at campus sites is out the window. I think it's a mistake not to host semi-final games at campuses. But I'm all for the change regardless.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...playoff-format
This will only work if we cut the number of bowl games to about 20 and cut the number of January Bowls to about 10
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: cdw1212
I agree that there are too many bowl games but that has nothing to do with why the big bowl games mean nothing. Nobody gives a **** about the small bowls (and never have) but all the big bowls have lost their importance because of the BCS Championship Bowl. I would rather see a two loss mid major play in the meaningless bowls instead of a .500 BCS conference team though. I remember being pissed that a good Hawaii team didn't make a bowl one year. You should at least have to have a winning record to play in a bowl game.
There was nothing wrong with the old bowl system except that biased voters decided who the champion and co-champion was. All we needed then was a computer system to help decide the champion and co-champion. Yes, we had co-champions when more than one team was deserving so most schools didn't have to complain that they were left out. The only argument came on rare occasions when a third team could have shared the championship but there were only two spots. What made their argument more valid was when the computers (which most fans knew nothing about) picked them over the teams that the human voters picked. If the human voters are going to continue to have more power than the computers in picking a champion then have two champions; an Opinion Poll Champion and a BCS Computer Champion or if they both agree then crown that team champion and if they disagree then have a plus one game with those two teams playing each other.
The BCS did kill the big bowls when they decided to choose two teams to play in a championship bowl before the other bowl games were even played. That meant that no other bowl meant ****. Put the system back the way it was where the big bowls played a major role in who was crowned champion on New Year's night. If we must have a (plus one) BCS championship game then at least wait until all the major bowls are played before choosing the top two teams to play.
I believe that this is what the college presidents would rather see instead of knee jerk reactions to try and put band-aides on the system every time the media makes a stink and IMO, it's way overdue.
I believe that when the meetings are held this summer that...
a. The major bowls will be moved back to January 1st.
b. Choosing two teams to play in a plus one game will be moved to after the bowl games are played.
Yep this is what they should have done in the first place, keep the bowl system the same, just add a plus one game
Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2
We have a playoff call it what it truly is a "4 team tournament"
The following users like this post: MeMyself&Me
Gosh your dumb ... post sesaon tournament/playoffs are the same thing in most formats. However playoffs fit this description a lot better. Taking the top four teams play in a semifinal and then having two teams play in the finals is a playoff. The reason BSC don't like using that word is because they have had a strong stance against such a system but now are forced to make some changes. Thus to save face, they're calling it something else.
Its a play on words. I really think you're an idiot but since i don't like calling people idiot's; I said you were dumb ... at the end of the day, to me it means the same thing.
The following users like this post: Cthulhu
This is factually incorrect. Come back when you know what you are talking about.
The following users like this post: SoonerPT
Sancho is correct here...as long as there is inequality among conferences and disparate inter-conference schedules it is not a playoff.
It is an invitation tournament.
So no one is proposing playoffs? Well check that news with Yahoo, Sportsline, ESPN etc because they are ALL writing articles about a certain entity called the NCAA proposing playoffs. And trust me, I didn't write this article (I'm not Wetzel) just to prove that you're an idiot.
get off of iamgross.com dating site and google the articles yourself.
Bowls' extravagant revenues are closely examined as the NCAA mulls a playoff system
By Dan Wetzel | Yahoo! Sports – 17 hours ago
They can call it whatever they want. Unless the participants in the tournament are all equally deserving of being there then it isnt a playoff, its just a tournament.So no one is proposing playoffs? Well check that news with Yahoo, Sportsline, ESPN etc because they are ALL writing articles about a certain entity called the NCAA proposing playoffs. And trust me, I didn't write this article (I'm not Wetzel) just to prove that you're an idiot.
get off of iamgross.com dating site and google the articles yourself.
Bowls' extravagant revenues are closely examined as the NCAA mulls a playoff system
For you to have a four team playoff then there has to 4 teams (and ONLY 4 teams) tied for number one at the conclusion of the regular season. If not it is just a tournament.
FOr instance, despite it's moniker, the NFL does not have a playoff. They have a ridiculous post-season tournament that due to its inclusiveness renders the regular season nearly meaningless.
At least in NCAA basketball they have the honesty to call it what it really is. Of course that honesty is little consolation to the entire sport being ruined by their abomination of a post season.
2 users like Sancho's post: MeMyself&Me, SoonerPT
It should be noted, the only reason that the NFL calls their tournament a 'playoff' (and other levels of football that have copied them) is that the first NFL playoff was an ad hoc game to break a tie. At the time they called it a playoff because that's exactly what it was. They discovered the financial success of their 'playoff' and decided to do it every year, whether a tie needed to be broken or not, and just kept calling it a playoff. They've also expanded their tournament well beyond its original intent...
The NFL could be considered a playoff (pre wild card) because there is insufficient data to determine a champion due to different divisions playing different schedules.
NCAA football could achieve a playoff with four 24 team leagues broken into 2 divisions each. A regular season consisting of a divisional round robin, followed by a conference championship, then a four team playoff.
The NCAA has nothing to do with how Division IA picks it's champion. The NCAA can propose all they want but it's the college presidents and at this date and time the BCS that decides how a champion is crowned.
From what I've read, the media thinks that the college presidents are forced to choose a playoff because they are in too deep because of the media but they can decide to do whatever they choose. Whether it's keeping the system the same, making some tweaks like waiting til bowl season is over before having a plus one championship game, just crowning a champion after the bowls are complete or having a four team tournament/playoff.
The college presidents have stated on numerous occasions that they would rather go back to the old bowl system before having a playoff or tweaking the BCS system every time the media demands a change so the only change that I can see is moving the major bowls back to January 1st (or 2nd) and waiting til after the bowls are complete to play a plus one championship game or pick a champion.
IMO, the best option is to use the BCS bowls to eliminate the pretenders and then preferably crowning the top team in the BCS rankings champion or having a plus one championship game after the bowls are complete.
The following users like this post: OUQuakers
Merged the playoff threads & switched up the name
looks like we are really gingv to get one!
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...r-team-playoff
Selection Committee possible
Commissioners of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivisions conferences are still considering a proposal that would use a selection committee to choose the teams for a potential four-team playoff, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and SEC commissioner Michael Slive said after BCS meetings on Wednesday.
Using a committee similar to the one used to select the 68-team field for the NCAA men's basketball committee is just one of the proposals being discussed and debated in daylong meetings at a beachside resort here.
“
There's a lot of open issues about how you select the four teams that are in. Is it current BCS standings, conference champions, some change to the ways the computers work to emphasize strength of schedule or a committee? How do you pick the teams?
”
-- Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott
FBS conference commissioners, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick, network TV executives and other college football officials will meet again on Thursday. Commissioners will then take the proposals back to their respective university presidents, athletic directors and coaches.
A final decision about changing the format in how college football determines its national champion probably would come before the end of the summer, possibly as early as late June.
A selection committee was first proposed a few months ago, but didn't seem to carry much weight at the time. Under current BCS rules, the top two teams in the final BCS standings play in the Allstate BCS National Championship Game.
If conference commissioners approve a four-team playoff, which would pit four teams in two semifinal games and the winners in a championship game, a selection committee could choose the teams, or the BCS standings could be tweaked to put greater emphasis on factors such as strength of schedule.
"I think (a committee) is worth looking at," Slive said. "I think in the final analysis, we need to look at the entire process. That's a matter that applies to any format."
Scott said commissioners spent more than four hours on Wednesday discussing how the teams would be selected in a four-team playoff.
"There's a lot of open issues about how you select the four teams that are in," Scott said. "Is it current BCS standings, conference champions, some change to the ways the computers work to emphasize strength of schedule or a committee? How do you pick the teams? That might impact how the Pac-12 feels about a particular model."
Scott wasn't ready to say that he would embrace a selection committee because he prefers a more objective approach to selecting the teams to play for a national championship.
"I'm trying to stay open-minded about how a committee could work," Scott said. "In basketball, it's established. At first blush, it feels a little counterintuitive to me in how the world has gone and what I think our fans want, which is more objective and more transparent and utilizing technology. I think this is an opportunity for college football to leapfrog forward and to write some more objective system. It doesn't mean that committees can't work, but it just wouldn't have been my first thought."
Scott said if college football decides to expand its championship format beyond two teams it needs to make sure the selection process is transparent.
"I think if we're going to expand beyond (numbers) 1 and 2, we all accept that there's a lot of subjectivity," Scott said. "The difference between 2 and 3 could be a decimal point. If -- and I keep underlining if because it's not a foregone conclusion that we'll get there -- we go to a four-team playoff we're essentially going to put more stock in a more credible, objective, fair system of balance and strength of schedule because we all don't play over the same course. Every conference has different caliber, some conferences play nine conference games and some play eight, some play stronger out-of-conference competition and some tend to not and just want to get home games. There are a lot of variables."
Scott also favors a proposal that would allow only conference champions to participate in a playoff. Last season, No. 2 Alabama defeated No. 1 LSU 21-0 in the BCS National Championship Game, after the Crimson Tide didn't win the SEC or SEC West.
"We're warm to that idea, for sure, and we're having a good discussion and exchange of ideas about it," Scott said. "There's certainly no consensus in the room. I'm in favor of more objective criteria and rewarding performances in the regular season than less subjective, like a team getting in a playoff versus not based on a decimal point change here or there. It doesn't feel very satisfactory, especially when you don't understand how the formulas work. Earning it on the field and placing value on the regular season are principles that we feel strong about. Everyone knows the deal at the beginning of the year."
Slive said he was opposed to the conference champions-only proposal, saying he preferred to choose the best four teams, regardless of whether they won their conference championships or not.
I don't think that the presidents have the same pull they used to. Conference commissioners have the power. Do you honestly think that Alabama's president (for example) would have the balls to leave the SEC because of this decision? The presidents of he Big XII have already guaranteed their membership to the conference...if the payday is really there, commissioners will get it done and drag the presidents along.
Just heard on sirus radio that the 4 teams are most likely to be chosen by a COMMITEE not rankings or conf champs. If so that is horrible
Once the SEC got two teams in the title game playoff talk got REAL popular. Not a coincidence.
For all you 'hope for change and change for hope' people, file that one away under the 'be careful what you wish for' file.
A selection committee would be a complete joke! Might as well let espn decide which 4 teams make it in
Okay, the NFL is WRONG, I'm wrong and you're right. Your an idiot. Their are more than ONE exclusive way to set a playoff system. Their is more than ONE exclusive way to set up a tournament.
Playoffs as defined in the football arena, is the version set by NFL, HS and DII. If you want to go around being the idiot that says "hope my cowboys make the post season tournament next year" ... well then ... giddy up.
I still don't understand why we need a four team playoff. If a selection committee is good enough to pick the four teams then why isn't it good enough to just pick a champion? If a computer system is good enough to pick the top four teams then why isn't it good enough to just pick a champion?
Computers already put emphasis on strength of schedule. The problem is that the human voters carry more weight than the computers and SOS goes right out the window. The same thing would happen with a selection committee. As mentioned above, ESPN might as well choose the four teams.
There either needs to be only one computer that lists all the data every week for all fans to see and understand without having to join a pay site to get this information or a selection of different computers that use different formulas. Right now, margin of victory is not allowed in BCS computers yet those computers are the most accurate at predicting the outcomes of games. The "Committee" could gather data from a "Superlist" made up of both retrodictive and predictive computer systems.
I thought when the AP poll dropped out of the BCS that we were going to do the smart thing and drop all human polls but we decided to add another one and then on top of that, give the human polls more power. Now, we're talking about having a selection committee with their own opinions deciding the fate of college football.
yea......4 SEC schools....wheeee.
I would rather have the committee choose four teams and argue who should be team 4,5,6 to get into playoff than argue who should be 2,3,4 to play for nation championship game. The possibility that the top teams are in the mix for the NC game is higher in the playoff system.
Hell move it to 8 teams. Possibility is higher there than 4. And heck, while we are at it, move it to 16. There's no way they could miss out there...and think about all the money they could make.
The following users like this post: DirtySouth_Sooner
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
