"Playoffs!?!".....says the Jim Mora voice over - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to College Football

"Playoffs!?!".....says the Jim Mora voice over

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby BGbootha » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:45 am

[quote="Munboy"]
Alas! I don't see the BSC going away anytime soon. /quote]

OK, I know you are all going to call me crazy!!! But why will the BCS format that exists now, 'never' go away? MONEY!!!, cold hard cash. Quite simply they make too much money selling advertising to the people who pay for the bowls right now.

How do they make that money? Us!!!!!!

Put it simply, boycott next years bowls, and demand a playoff
Image
BGbootha
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 3830
Joined: 18 Feb 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Teaching is the Greatest Job in the World!!! (during the Summer)

Postby ShoelessJoe » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:46 am

Munboy wrote:I'm all for playoffs. They can keep the BSC, but for rankings only. The top 6 or 8 teams in the BSC duke it out to earn the right in the championship game. After flordia handed OSU's cleats to them, and after Boise state stomped on OU, I wonder how BS would have faired against OSU. (you guys do realize BS was the only undefeated team, right?) Imagine if BS wasn't penalized for playing "weaker" teams and got the right to play in the championship game with OSU as the only undefeated teams left and BS won. 8-o

Alas! I don't see the BSC going away anytime soon. The powers that be seem to be too hard headed to listen to all the crys for change.


Um, I'm sorry but Boise St did play weaker teams. And they didn't deserve to be in the NC game. Florida was more deserving. Michigan was more deserving. USC was more deserving. And LSU was also more deserving. The fact that Boise St went undefeated is irrelevant, they played 4 bowl eligible teams. None of whom made it to even a New Year's Day Bowl. All of the four teams mentioned above played and either beat or lost to teams that played on New Year's Day Bowl Games as well as played more bowl eligibile teams than Boise St. They also played tougher non-Bowl Eligible teams as I would be hard pressed to say that the non-Bowl Eligible teams in the WAC are as competitive as the non-Bowl Eligible teams in the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10. There's a reason they're called the major conferences.
Go Gators
ShoelessJoe
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1621
Joined: 1 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gainesville, FL

Postby HskrPwr13 » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:20 am

Munboy wrote:I'm all for playoffs. They can keep the BSC, but for rankings only. The top 6 or 8 teams in the BSC duke it out to earn the right in the championship game. After flordia handed OSU's cleats to them, and after Boise state stomped on OU, I wonder how BS would have faired against OSU. (you guys do realize BS was the only undefeated team, right?) Imagine if BS wasn't penalized for playing "weaker" teams and got the right to play in the championship game with OSU as the only undefeated teams left and BS won. 8-o

Alas! I don't see the BSC going away anytime soon. The powers that be seem to be too hard headed to listen to all the crys for change.


Shouldnt they be?! If no one gives 2 cents about a teams sched, then bring on the 1-AAs. Isnt this why Auburn was left out a couple of years ago?
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby HskrPwr13 » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:25 am

ShoelessJoe wrote:I'm guessing this is gonna be a long post so enjoy, but if you're going to comment... please read the entire thing and not just part of it, thank you.

Ok, so here's my idea that I think may be a bit more feasible than some of the earlier mentioned ideas. For whatever reason, it seems that a few people control what will happen with the BCS and college football, I think those people are University Presidents and Conference Commissioners, most notably those commissioners of the BCS conferences. As the situation stands, those conferences are set to be guaranteed at a minimum $17 million annually, with some making more depending on if they can get two teams into the BCS. Why would they turn that down? Let's say for example we had an 8 team playoff... it could be concluded that the further you make it the more money you get it (surely if you make it to the final four over elite eight you would be deserving of a higher paycheck). That means some conferences would make more and some would make less, but the guaranteed money would be less than the $17 million that is currently given. This would be a negative for the conferences because there is nothing better as far as these conferences can see from guaranteed money.

Now onto the tricky part, the University Presidents. Their main concern (the one they publically speak of at least), is finals. Someone mentioned earlier that their basketball team played during the time that the football team had off. I'd bet it wasn't actually during finals week though. I know at UF for the three years that I've been here the men's and women's team have each had one and a half week layoffs for finals week. No sport is played during the reading days we have here at UF or at anytime during finals week. The toughest part about the 8 team playoff idea is that the University system accross the country is not the same. Not all Universities finish their semester or have finals week at the same time. Thus, the logistics such that a playoff would miss all of these possible scenerios is unrealistic. That means you would have to push the games back even further (because as of now the first week in December is typically conference championship Saturday). So let's say for example you push the playoffs back around Christmas time, that means that you have three weeks of games from after Christmas and then you run into NFL playoffs. (Think about how many people here have even said they didn't care about the NC game because the NFL playoffs had already started. If an NCAA playoff were to be played at the same time you would also lose a bit of the audience.)

So... onto my idea. It's a hybrid system that would change from year to year depending on the teams and advice of a committee. A committee made up of conference commissioners, athletic directors, and other important people within college football… kind of like the basketball selection committee. That committee would decide the two teams to play in the NC game, or if need be propose a different idea. That idea however wouldn’t be set in stone, it could be a few things. Here’s a few possible scenerios… if you have this year’s example then the committee would have Michigan play Florida and OSU would play the winner. It’s a plus-one with an asterisk. Then there would also be the other BCS bowls for the other 5 teams to play in. I know what some may be thinking, that’s not fair that OSU gets a bye, well they get the bye because they performed better in the regular season. This may not always be the case. If we have last year’s teams in USC and Texas then they just play for the NC. It’s a system that is not set and stone, that changes from year to year depending on how the committee sees it to fit best that year to determine the champion. The committee would be given the utmost discretion as to determine what scenario they see fit.

So that’s my idea. Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be put into effect? There’s probably about a 0.001% chance. But, I think it would be fair, it would allow us to determine it on the field more than we currently do, it would still give the conferences the money that they want, it would still allow for games to be bowl games, and it would allow the students to finish their classes and finals without interruption.

Okay, so who hates my idea? :-B


I dont hate it at all. Its much like my first idea, only your making the decision before the bowls, rather than after. Assumming that they go to a 2 game playoff, I'd rather have something like this then having a static 1-4 play each other regardless of whether the 3 and 4 ranked teams deserve to have any business in a playoff with the top 2.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Free Bagel » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:42 pm

dgan wrote:6) Truly, the BEST team - Not for one game. For 3 games. Anyone can win one game. But to go undefeated for 3 straight games against the best teams in the country? That is an accomplishment and truly awards the team that shows the ability to sustain good play and adapt to different styles of opponents over several consecutive games. The best team isn't the one that has one unbelievable game and then lays an egg. It is the team that plays well consistantly.


Incinuating that playoffs determine the actual best team is unfathomable. In fact, your whole statement is a total opposite. If anything the current system awards consistency far more than a playoff (where you could lose several games during the year and still get in and get hot at the right time) ever would.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Free Bagel » Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:31 pm

All this Boise State talk has just got me itching to rant, and a lot of people are going to hate me for it.

Quite frankly a playoff would just make the Boise situation even more annoying for me because they'd be taking someone else's spot. I know everyone is going to hate me for it with all this talk of how "deserving" they are but c'mon, why are they any more deserving than even an unranked UCLA team? Hear me out.

Boise blew out a decent Utah squad.
UCLA blew out a decent Utah squad.

Boise blew out a solid Oregon State team at home at the beginning of the year when OSU was struggling.
UCLA blew out a solid Oregon State team at home at the end of the year when OSU was rolling.

Boise beat a good Oklahoma team in overtime on a series of trick plays.
UCLA beat a better USC team straight up.

So what's the difference? That would be that UCLA lost a handful of tough conference road games while Boise was beating up on a bunch of no-namers that almost anyone in the top 50 could romp right through (even the best of those teams were 2-7 against major conference teams with the two wins coming against the 9th place SEC team and a one point victory over the worst of all major conference teams: Stanford). That's supposed to impress me?

Taking a 6 point lead into the final 5 minutes of a game against unheard of Idaho is supposed to impress me more than losing by 14 at Cal? Giving up 500+ passing yards in a 12 point win over New Mexico State (they have a football team?) is supposed to be more impressive than a loss at Autzen Stadium? A last minute 3-point win over San Jose State is supposed to impress me more than a last second 3-point loss to an overrated, but real team in Notre Dame? Sacramento State? Louisiana Tech? Why even bother? If Boise had just played Oregon State and Oklahoma and stayed at home the rest of the season it would've impressed me more than what they did.

Quite frankly, I'd be just as scared to play UCLA as I would Boise, and they're what...30th? In a real conference, Boise is just another one of those OK teams.

Everybody loves to complain about how every team doesn't have a "real" chance to win it all but so what? Basketball teams have all had a chance for decades and none of them have ever done it, and the mid-major basketball teams are way more competetive comparitive to the major conference teams than they are in football.

Commence the hatred.
Image
Free Bagel
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertMock(ing) DrafterCafe Musketeer
Posts: 8495
Joined: 25 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Titletown, FL

Postby Munboy » Mon Jan 15, 2007 9:20 pm

ShoelessJoe wrote:
Munboy wrote:I'm all for playoffs. They can keep the BSC, but for rankings only. The top 6 or 8 teams in the BSC duke it out to earn the right in the championship game. After flordia handed OSU's cleats to them, and after Boise state stomped on OU, I wonder how BS would have faired against OSU. (you guys do realize BS was the only undefeated team, right?) Imagine if BS wasn't penalized for playing "weaker" teams and got the right to play in the championship game with OSU as the only undefeated teams left and BS won. 8-o

Alas! I don't see the BSC going away anytime soon. The powers that be seem to be too hard headed to listen to all the crys for change.


Um, I'm sorry but Boise St did play weaker teams. And they didn't deserve to be in the NC game. Florida was more deserving. Michigan was more deserving. USC was more deserving. And LSU was also more deserving. The fact that Boise St went undefeated is irrelevant, they played 4 bowl eligible teams. None of whom made it to even a New Year's Day Bowl. All of the four teams mentioned above played and either beat or lost to teams that played on New Year's Day Bowl Games as well as played more bowl eligibile teams than Boise St. They also played tougher non-Bowl Eligible teams as I would be hard pressed to say that the non-Bowl Eligible teams in the WAC are as competitive as the non-Bowl Eligible teams in the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10. There's a reason they're called the major conferences.



And we will never know if that statement is true or not because they did not have the chance to prove what they could do in a playoff system.

At the end of the day, everyone thought they'd get blown out by OU, but they turned out to be the only undefeated team last year.
Image
Feel small yet?
Munboy
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1934
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby HskrPwr13 » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:17 am

Free Bagel wrote:All this Boise State talk has just got me itching to rant, and a lot of people are going to hate me for it.

Quite frankly a playoff would just make the Boise situation even more annoying for me because they'd be taking someone else's spot. I know everyone is going to hate me for it with all this talk of how "deserving" they are but c'mon, why are they any more deserving than even an unranked UCLA team? Hear me out.

Boise blew out a decent Utah squad.
UCLA blew out a decent Utah squad.

Boise blew out a solid Oregon State team at home at the beginning of the year when OSU was struggling.
UCLA blew out a solid Oregon State team at home at the end of the year when OSU was rolling.

Boise beat a good Oklahoma team in overtime on a series of trick plays.
UCLA beat a better USC team straight up.

So what's the difference? That would be that UCLA lost a handful of tough conference road games while Boise was beating up on a bunch of no-namers that almost anyone in the top 50 could romp right through (even the best of those teams were 2-7 against major conference teams with the two wins coming against the 9th place SEC team and a one point victory over the worst of all major conference teams: Stanford). That's supposed to impress me?

Taking a 6 point lead into the final 5 minutes of a game against unheard of Idaho is supposed to impress me more than losing by 14 at Cal? Giving up 500+ passing yards in a 12 point win over New Mexico State (they have a football team?) is supposed to be more impressive than a loss at Autzen Stadium? A last minute 3-point win over San Jose State is supposed to impress me more than a last second 3-point loss to an overrated, but real team in Notre Dame? Sacramento State? Louisiana Tech? Why even bother? If Boise had just played Oregon State and Oklahoma and stayed at home the rest of the season it would've impressed me more than what they did.

Quite frankly, I'd be just as scared to play UCLA as I would Boise, and they're what...30th? In a real conference, Boise is just another one of those OK teams.

Everybody loves to complain about how every team doesn't have a "real" chance to win it all but so what? Basketball teams have all had a chance for decades and none of them have ever done it, and the mid-major basketball teams are way more competetive comparitive to the major conference teams than they are in football.

Commence the hatred.


Love it. I still dont understand all the angst in regards to BSU and a title shot. For some reason, (What was different this year?) playoffs were a bigger deal than ever this year. No one made this big of a deal when Utah went undefeated and didnt play for a title. (Frankly, I thought that Utah team was better than this BSU team.) And to me the whole notion that a non-BCS conference team cant win the national title was busted 20 years ago when a questionable BYU won the NC. Like I've said before, I think too many people are just jumping on the bandwagon either because of lack of analytical skill (following the crowd/rose colored glasses) or because they want the spectacle of a playoff regardless of how fairly its implemented.
HskrPwr13
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3936
Joined: 8 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby BritSox » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:56 am

HskrPwr13 wrote:
Love it. I still dont understand all the angst in regards to BSU and a title shot. For some reason, (What was different this year?) playoffs were a bigger deal than ever this year. No one made this big of a deal when Utah went undefeated and didnt play for a title. (Frankly, I thought that Utah team was better than this BSU team.) And to me the whole notion that a non-BCS conference team cant win the national title was busted 20 years ago when a questionable BYU won the NC. Like I've said before, I think too many people are just jumping on the bandwagon either because of lack of analytical skill (following the crowd/rose colored glasses) or because they want the spectacle of a playoff regardless of how fairly its implemented.


There wasn't a BCS twenty years ago. I think it's likely that the BCS system makes it even harder for mid-majors to get a shot. The fact that there was only one unbeaten team in the major conferences this year, and BSU went undefeated, makes it the perfect storm conditions for Boise, and yet they still don't get to play for a title. What is it gonna take? Every single team in the BCS conferences having two or more losses? At some point, the playing field has to be levelled. As I said before, if being one of only two undefeated teams out of the 100+ in the division isn't enough, then these teams shouldn't be in the division at all.

Eight conferences of ten teams, of similar strength. Winner of each goes to a BCS bowl. Plus one model. Each team is required to schedule two non-conference games for comparative purposes, no playing 1AA schools. Either all conferences have title games, or none do.
"I can't say that. I'd have to say having Ryan Leaf quarterback us to a 1-15 record is probably the biggest challenge."

Rodney Harrison, on whether losing Tom Brady to injury was the greatest challenge he has faced in football.
BritSox
Defensive Assistant
Defensive Assistant

User avatar

Posts: 374
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: The Dark Side

Postby ShoelessJoe » Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:58 pm

BritSox wrote:There wasn't a BCS twenty years ago. I think it's likely that the BCS system makes it even harder for mid-majors to get a shot. The fact that there was only one unbeaten team in the major conferences this year, and BSU went undefeated, makes it the perfect storm conditions for Boise, and yet they still don't get to play for a title. What is it gonna take? Every single team in the BCS conferences having two or more losses? At some point, the playing field has to be levelled. As I said before, if being one of only two undefeated teams out of the 100+ in the division isn't enough, then these teams shouldn't be in the division at all.


The BCS as adjusted this year has made it easier for a non-major conference to finish higher. If you look at what the non-major conference teams have finished (Utah in 2004 at 4/5 and Boise in 2006 at 5/6). Prior to the BCS only BYU finished in the top 5 from the same amount of time (1987-1996 vs 1997-2006). The mid-majors get to play on the biggest stage, make the big money, and get national exposure, nothing has been better for them. For example, when BYU won the only Natl Title ever won by a mid-major they beat then 6-5 Michigan in the Holiday Bowl in 1984. The game was played before Jan 1. If that doesn't prove how little exposure the mid-majors got before the BCS I don't know what does...


BritSox wrote:Eight conferences of ten teams, of similar strength. Winner of each goes to a BCS bowl. Plus one model. Each team is required to schedule two non-conference games for comparative purposes, no playing 1AA schools. Either all conferences have title games, or none do.


There are 117 D-1 football programs, not 80. Also, the conferences will NOT split up into lesser conferences. What motivation does that Big 10 or SEC have to split up and get into one of these smaller conferences when they each made $34 million from just the BCS bowl games alone. Also, all of the big paying bowl games (The Citrus, Gator, Cotton, Peach, Alamo) involve two major conference teams... the major conferences don't want to give up this guaranteed money.
Go Gators
ShoelessJoe
Head Coach
Head Coach


Posts: 1621
Joined: 1 Oct 2002
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gainesville, FL

PreviousNext

Return to College Football

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 16:49 hours
(and 34 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact