"Fixing" college football -- let's see your solution

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
YES! Of course it's fair, are you saying if Okla gets calls from Wyoming, Tulane, Temple, East Mich, Navy, Duke, and Houston they have to agree to 1 for 1s with every AD who calls? We're talking realistic solutions here, I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about giving all the teams an equal chance, right? Wouldn't a realistic solution be putting everyone one on even ground, even in regards to home/away OOC games? If not, maybe the lesser teams should just be relegated to a lower division. After all, it's anything but 'fair' that they should have to work that much harder to get to the same place, isn't it?

It might be easier to make a 3rd division, in between the BCS and the playoff division. Put the MAC, WAC and others in it. That way the BCS conferences are on much more equal footing. Make the champion of that mid-division BCS eligible.

Then, that could lead to a possible geographical relegation/promotion system.

b

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah made their bed, they have to lie in it. I got no sympathy. If I'm an independent, [or weak conf] and I purposely schedule teams likely to be ranked 111-119 in the polls 4 years from now, and I run the table because I'm 50th best, and play 4 away and 8 home games, you're saying that entitles me to a guaranteed playoff berth? No. I disagree.

Anyway, see if my earlier suggestion makes sense or is nonsense.

Besides, now Utah can claim until the year 9999 they were really the best. Who is harmed by that? USC? No one.

Edit: Utah scheduled Utah St and UNC OOC. Football powers? No. Even close? No.

UNC didn't have a winning record in 1999 or 2000 - it's not like they scheduled Miami and got the 7-6 Canes instead of the 12-1 version. They pussed out, pure and simple. Urban Meyer was afraid to play top 10 teams OOC until he could get to a giant football power like Florida.

[/ QUOTE ]

Real convenient how you dog Utah for playing an in-state rivalry game and a middle-of-the-road ACC team in North Carolina and then completely ignore the game against Texas A&M. A&M had a winning record every year from 1997 to 2001 which includes the entire window that Utah could possibly have scheduled them including an 11-3 Sugar Bowl season in 1998. Utah made the effort to play as tough a schedule as they could, the chips just didn't fall the right way when it came time to play. Also, I'm pretty sure that Urban Meyer was at Bowling Green during the time period you're saying that he was pressuring the AD to schedule cupcakes like North Carolina and Texas A&M.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're screwing every team not in the Big 6. I have a big problem with that. You are urging them to play more weak OOC teams instead of strong ones [why take the risk now? There's no point if I win my conf] and we both *know* this will happen. You're giving an autobid to a 8-3 VaTech team over a 11-0 Houston, Hawaii, Wyoming, or CMich team. Doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

BTW, I'm not doing this at all. I'd give playoff berths to the top 6 conference champions by BCS ranking, regardless of which conference they're in. Last year, under my system, the 6 auto-bids would have gone to: Ohio State, Florida, USC, Louisville, Boise State, and Oklahoma. Wake Forest would have to settle for taking on Oklahoma or Boise in the Orange Bowl. Also, playing important OOC games would be very important in determining the 2 at-large berths and would be important for mid-majors to make it easier for them to get one of the 6 conference champion spots. Virginia Tech actually could miss out on the playoffs in your scenario, but I think knowing that they'd have a pretty good shot by winning their conference would actually encourage teams to take more shots at high-profile early-season games to give themselves the chance to get an at-large if they finish second in their conference or a home game if they finish first.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There would still be some fans that couldn't go to both, but I don't think it would be completely unworkable. It would still be much easier than trying to coordinate getting Final Four tickets/reservations after winning an Elite Eight game for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, hosting a home playoff game is a RIDICULOUS advantage. Be serious! NCAAB got rid of that system over 20 years ago -- it'd be such a massive advantage it's not funny. Miami is #5 and PSU is #4 so Miami has to go play at night in Dec at PSU? Whaaaat?
How is that fair? Assume they are both undefeated or 11-1, isn't one team getting royally hosed?


[/ QUOTE ]

If both teams are 11-1 or better, then the only way they won't be getting home games is if they didn't win their conference. You pretty much never get 5 major conference champions that only have one loss.

Once again, my system is that the top 4 conference champions would all get home games. Usually, the teams that don't will either be at-larges or ranked in the 10-15 range. Would Michigan get screwed having to go to the Coliseum in the first round? A little bit, but that's what they get for losing to Ohio State. A team like Boise State might be getting screwed a little bit too, but I think they'd rather have a shot to make the semis in a hostile environment than they would to have no shot at all.

[BobJoeJim]

[ QUOTE ]
Make it all year round.

[/ QUOTE ]
I just read through all 92 posts in this thread, and this is DEFINITELY the best suggestion I saw [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I do think many people made good points, particularly MT2R and Najdorf, but I just don't see college football as something that needs to be fixed. It's by far the best thing in sports right now, why can't we just enjoy that?

If the lack of a definitive national champ every single year bothers you THAT much, a 4 game playoff would work well, but I don't think it's necessary. More than that is definitely not needed though. As a fan I've been on the bad side of being left out of a title game (Ducks, 2001), but when has a #5 team EVER legitimately been able to argue they should have been in the title game? 4 teams covers the years when there are three undefeateds, or when there is a tough question as to who is #2 and deserves a title shot against a "clear" #1.

Still, while I wouldn't object to a four team playoff, I don't think it's necessary (even if I would have loved to see my Ducks get a shot in 2001, but hey, we blew the Stanford game, so we can't really blame the system).

[Riverman]

MT2R wins this thread so far because he acknowledges that the bowls aren't going anywhere. They are way too profitable/entrenched.

Three rounds of neutral site games, however, is not good. But two rounds means only 3 total games, which would shut out one of the major bowls and would therefore never happen.
So, how about preserving the big 4 by making them the FIRST round games in an 8 team playoff on Jan. 1 (preserves the ability of fans to travel, restores Jan. 1, keeps their importance/revenue), then play the last two rounds on campuses based upon seeding?

This would preserve everything we like about the current system and add an incredible amount of excitement. It could keep the bowls and presidents happy without diluting the regular season while giving fans more of that they love about the sport.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
(pretty ridiculous IMO telling the players who worked hard through spring ball and summer conditioning that they should be eliminated before the season started due to something their athletic director did 5 years ago)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not ridiculous at all. Grossly unfair to the players, yeah maybe. This is why scheduling one OOC game by a committee designed that is designed to act almost as a playoff game would be a good idea. Take one game out of Auburn's hands and make them play a real OOC opponent in 2004.

[Riverman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(pretty ridiculous IMO telling the players who worked hard through spring ball and summer conditioning that they should be eliminated before the season started due to something their athletic director did 5 years ago)

[/ QUOTE ]
Not ridiculous at all. Grossly unfair to the players, yeah maybe. This is why scheduling one OOC game by a committee designed that is designed to act almost as a playoff game would be a good idea. Take one game out of Auburn's hands and make them play a real OOC opponent in 2004.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when has fairness to players had anything to do with anything in college sports? Booster pays a player 3 years ago = no playoffs for you, no pay, etc. And schedules are available way in advance. If you don't want to get Auburned, go to a school that plays good teams OOC.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Pvn, what kind of playoff are you advocating? The basic reason for the bowl system is that with 16 or less teams making the playoffs, there are a lot of teams that have absolutely no shot at ever making the postseason. The chances of a Sun Belt team making an 8-team playoff for example would be worse than 1 in 100,000. Therefore, you give that team an intermediate carrot to strive for, in this case a bowl game. Under my system, they'd at least have a chance to make the playoffs, if they went undefeated or went 11-1 with a decent schedule, but I think we all know the talent level's just not there for that to be realistic right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I explicitly said there's no reason to *limit* the post season to *just* the national championship playoff.

[ QUOTE ]
In basketball, they play 30+ regular season games, and can play 3 games in a week, so a tournament like the NIT is feasible for second-tier teams. In football, it's just not. The game's physically bruising and no one wants to make weeks of travel plans to see which football team's #17 or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why postseason for non-playoff teams would probably not involve 8-team tourneys.

[ QUOTE ]
With an 11-12 game regular season, the correct amount of postseason for teams outside the championship chase is one game, period. Enter the bowl system. I do feel that it's gotten overgrown, and if I ran college football, I'd eliminate at least 5 or 6 of the lower-tier bowls to make reaching a bowl more special again, but I do think it's the ideal system if you want a small enough playoff to make the regular season meaningful for the elite teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is anyone who can "eliminate" bowl games other than the market. Basically anyone can start their own bowl game and pass out bids.

Well, the NCAA could eliminate *all* of them unilaterally by simply declaring that it won't allow its teams to play in them. Or it could go to some sort of cartelized system where only "approved" games are allowed.

That brings up another point. for there to be *any* playoff, bowl-inclusive or not, there *has* to be NCAA approval for teams to play more than one post-season game, since the rules currently forbid it. The BCS can't just up and say "we're having a +1 game this year".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You can still have terrible bowl games plus a playoff, no one is going to care about the International Bowl between the MAC #2 and the Sun Belt champion now or in the future. Division 1AA can do it, so can II, so can III, I think we can see an 8 team playoff in 1A without compromising the traditions of the sport or, try not to laugh, the academic integrity that every school strives for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding.

Though I don't really care about "compromising the traditions." Tradition is a poor excuse for maintaining a broken system past its time.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone's friends and family can travel to 4 distant cities in 3 weeks, and afford airfare, hotel, food, tix times 4. 99% of fans cannot. 98% of alums cannot. 99.5% of students cannot.

Why do people pretend otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're supporting basketball bowl games then?

[ QUOTE ]
Why all the utterly *retarded* comparisons to basketball. CBB you can play 4-5 games a week, do any Div 1 football teams play 4-5x a week? Do they play 35x a year? That's why there has been no workable solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

But during basketball season, friends, family, fans, alums, students CAN magically afford airfare, hotel, food, tix times MORE THAN FOUR for conference AND ncaa tournies?

Retarded, obviously. The fact that basketball teams play MORE games helps my point. Fans go to MORE home games, and those who travel travel to MORE places.

[ QUOTE ]
CBB has a 3-week playoff, are we going to start playing Cal v Okla at 10pm Fri nite and then Okla v LSU on Sunday noon?
And then do it the next week 2x, and the week after that?? It's like people have never heard of scheduling or operations mgmt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, because obviously all the games would have to be in the same location. :|