You obviously didn't see the Michigan/Florida game...Originally Posted by No One
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
I think 16 teams and incorporate all the bowl games. Instead of the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl between SW State and Northeastern Podunk University playing for nothing we could have had #1 vs #16 with the loser going home.
Rotate the actual final game between the current BCS bowl games and do the playoffs over the holiday break. It would only take 4 weeks and you keep the bowls.....
There was an article on Yahoo a while back dealing with a playoff system. I liked it. Each conf champion gets a ticket to the playoff. No debate. You win your conf, you get in. Then a committee picks the 5 remaining spots from teams that didn't get in to determine a field of 16. Seeding is done and away you go. You want in for sure? Win your conference.
This would be a lot easier to say if all conferences had a full round-robin schedule like the Pac-10. For example, LSU and Georgia never played each other this season.
I have hard time saying the MAC champion should go over an at-large team. It's a lot easier in basketball when there are 65 teams involved.
I totally understand that, but think about it this way. . .if a team loses out because they didn't play enough conf games, wouldn't they schedule that for next year? Or better yet, in addition to that scheme, make it a mandatory 7 conf games or something. Large conferences won't play each other every year, but so be it. Those things happen. Just because LSU and Georgia didn't play, they still got a conf champ out of it.
I agree here too. But the article was talking about the idea that what is exciting to everyone in March Madness isn't the Final game so much as it's the 12 beating the 5. Upsets are what makes it special. Would App State beat LSU this year? Not likely. . .but we didn't think they'd beat Michigan at home either. Point is, if you win your conf, you're in. If you don't, but you had a great year, you could still get in. Georgia would have been in the tourney this year. So would have UWV. It made the most sense to me out of any other idea. There's a reward for winning your conference. Gives the smaller schools a chance. . .however small it is.
Here's the article:
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?s...yhoo&type=lgns
It has nothing to do with making some choice to schedule some more conference games. Any conference bigger than 10 teams will have this issue. The Pac-10 is the only one of the BCS conferences with a full round-robin, and that didn't even exist until the schedule bumped up from 11 to 12 games. In a playoff system, they'd almost undoubtedly dump the Pac-10 back to eight conference games, so that would be zero. You have to account for that.
Non-BCS conference teams can still get into the playoff anyway if they run the table. Are you honestly telling me it makes sense to you to add an 8-5 MAC champ Bowling Green team over a far more qualified at-large from a bigger conference?
And on a tangent, I don't buy the "The regular season is sacred" argument either. Injuries can cost you a game and for that an entire season is lost (see USC vs. Oregon, West Virginia vs. Pitt, etc.), whereas in a playoff this is irrelevant.
Basketball is also a much different animal. Much shorter game for the viewer's attention span, the three-point equalizer for less athletically-gifted teams, a lot more games that come down to the final minute of play, and most notably it's much less physically demanding. Adding an extra round to incorporate a bunch of garbage teams seems extraordinarily fruitless.
Like I said, if every conference team doesn't play each other every year, so be it. Make a rule saying each team plays 8 conf games and 3 out of conf games. I'd be fine with that. I don't know what the issue would be at that point.
I'll be honest, yes. I feel that there has to be some importance to the regular season for the smaller conferences. Why does a MAC team have to run the table to even be in consideration for a national title, but a "power conference" can lose once or twice and still be in the running? You can tell me that it's because they play harder teams, but I'd say that Bowling Green is as tough an opponent for SDSU as USC would be for Oregon. As I said previously too, I'm sure SMU probably wouldn't beat LSU or USC in an opening round, but what if they did? What if they pulled a Boise State? How freaking exciting was that game? Sorry, but if we had this system in place this year, ASU wouldn't have gotten screwed. West Virginia and Mizzou could have had a shot at redeming themselves after one bad game. I don't mind that BYU or some other smaller school gets in. Creates a reward for the small schools AND the big schools.
Agree. But at what point does that matter? One game? Two? Three? If a team is running the table and loses three games at the end of the year, their chance of being in the playoffs is pretty slim. If you have a group of people making some choices, they might put that team in even though they're out of the Top 16 or 8 or whatever.
Um, this already happens. As far as I know, each team (minus the independents of course) plays a set slate of 9 conf. and 3 nonconf. games. My point has nothing to do with the number distribution, but that you can't go talking about the conference championship as if it's the defining factor when teams like LSU and Georgia don't even play each other within their conference.
You answered your own question.
So what? A little league team would be as tough an opponent for another little league team too. Completely irrelevant.
Boise State ran the table and deserved to be there.
As previously noted, the logistics in college football vs. college basketball are much, much different and you have to account for that.
ASU didn't get screwed. They didn't belong anywhere near a BCS game. They got beat double-digits by the two good teams they played all year.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote