NCAA Postseason Proposal

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>And if the BCS schools are so elite, then you have to rearrange the conferences. The Big East doesn't belong (at least not in its current form), and several teams of EACH BCS conference must be replaced by better schools. Get rid of Baylor and add in TCU. Get rid of UW or WSU and add Boise State. Get rid of Duke and Vandy and replace them with other teams. They're essentially mooching off the conference when they're not very good. I'd remove crappy teams every couple years, so we don't end up with someone like Baylor every year. You suck that bad for that long, work your way back up to the good conference.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'd actually have no problem with restructuring the conferences. I even suggested earlier that Boise St should be added to the Mountain West. (also, the Big East was pretty good this year. You could argue to take them out of the BCS in past seasons, but Cincy, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, and USF all look like they have their programs headed in the right direction)</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Astil" data-cite="Astil" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Then kick then down to d-2. Otherwise all D1 conference champs deserve a shot.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They probably should tbh. </p><p> </p><p> Or there should be something between div 2 and div 1.</p>

[CQI13]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I'd actually have no problem with restructuring the conferences. I even suggested earlier that Boise St should be added to the Mountain West. (also, the Big East was pretty good this year. You could argue to take them out of the BCS in past seasons, but Cincy, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, and USF all look like they have their programs headed in the right direction)</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But again, "in the right direction" doesn't mean good. Doesn't matter how many ranked teams they beat, because rankings are pointless (since they come from preseason). There's way too much money involved for any of this to ever change. And considering TCU coach Gary Patterson has no problem with the BCS (and his team potentially got 'screwed') they can keep the system. I don't think that under any system there would be more than 5 meaningful bowl games (and no, they're not all BCS games).</p><p> </p><p> For me, it's:</p><p> </p><p> National Title</p><p> Whatever Bowl your school goes to</p><p> 2-3 other bowls with intriguing matchups</p><p> </p><p> And for me it's typically not Big Ten or Pac 10 teams.</p><p> </p><p> This year I'd say:</p><p> </p><p> UT vs Alabama</p><p> UF vs Cincinnati **Alma mater</p><p> TCU vs Boise State</p><p> FSU vs WV **Bowden's last game</p><p> </p><p> Aside from that, I'll be skipping just about every other game (all 30 of them).</p>

[cappyboy]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="CQI13" data-cite="CQI13" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25413" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div><p> </p><p> And if the BCS schools are so elite, then you have to rearrange the conferences. The Big East doesn't belong (at least not in its current form), and several teams of EACH BCS conference must be replaced by better schools. Get rid of Baylor and add in TCU. Get rid of UW or WSU and add Boise State. Get rid of Duke and Vandy and replace them with other teams. They're essentially mooching off the conference when they're not very good. I'd remove crappy teams every couple years, so we don't end up with someone like Baylor every year. You suck that bad for that long, work your way back up to the good conference.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Now you're talking my language here. What you're proposing here is sort of like the European soccer model. Every year, the teams that finish at the bottom of their current division drop the next one down and the teams that had the most success at that lower level jump up to take their place. Properly managed munchkins then hold their place at thier new level and work for the next one while the lesser managed ones tend to yo-yo around. And those "relegation" games tend to have a fair bit of cachet as well. At least from what I've been able to tell mostly on the outside looking in when I can. </p><p> </p><p> It's long seemed that if stuff like what Peter Hilton was saying about conferences like the WAC, Sun Belt and Conference USA is true, there's no logical reason for them to be in the same pool for the same level of national title as Floridas and USC's and Alabamas of the world. Like should have to play like and deflate many of these egotistical programs around the nation. </p><p> </p><p> Folks so often like to bash NFL players for their egos and their senses of entitlement. But at least each one of those guys is just one indivdual random guy. It's the marquee colleges that really stultify me with this stuff. Even if you had say an eight team tourney and had it all at large, you'd still have several legacy programs harumphing about why they weren't in the mix. Forget teams like TCU or Boise State who might have come to deserve it based on results earned. In the NFL, I can only really think of one team who even comes close to approaching the ego of the marquee colleges and that's the Dallas Cowboys.</p><p> </p><p> Let's start with what CQ suggested here. And perhaps it can lead to the next logical step. Letting the Baylors and the Dukes and such play the guys Brother Hilton was trashing around for a mid-range national title while the big boys play for the overall one. Because if Peter's bashing is justified, that means there are too many teams in the Football Bowl Subdivsion or whatever the heck they are calling themselves these days to make them feel better about their inadequacies. And if the game is that top heavy, the overall national title is going to be meaningless anyway until the pool's put back in balance.</p>

[hobbitrjw]

Okay one thing I think that gets overlooked here is if you start shuffling around teams to diffrent conferences based on how deserving they all,does that not create more of a mess than it helps? Because if you move one school from one conference to another does this not take effect not only in Football,but other sports like Basketball? If so then if you try moving teams like that cause they are less deserving to be there in Football,you might totally mess up another sport like Basketball. The only way this works is to completely do away with conferences and have Divison I Divison II and maybe one lower divison and then do a sort of Promotion Relegation System as suggested above,and then the top 8 teams In Divison I enter a playoff system for the National Championship.

[GDE71]

Promotion/Relegation system will not work in US college athletics.

 

 

16 teams playoff. Just take the top 16 teams in the BCS standings so you can still give theme a bit of an ego stroke.

 

They use 16 teams in what was 1AA and D2. They use 32 teams in D3.

[Remianen]

IIRC thats the WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA...?

 

They suck. Go kick rocks until basketball season starts

 

(not being flip..but those conferences simply don't spend the funds or play football at the over-all level of the major conferences)

 

I hate this argument..

 

Yes. It's sports. So a huge upset is possible at any time.

 

That's not the question.

 

The question is: does winning a conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA mean as much as winning the SEC or PAC-10.

 

No. It doesn't. They don't play the same level of competition. The schools don't have the same budget. On a team-by-team basis there's no comparison when you look at the difference in the conferences.

 

If they have a great season, go undefeated, and get a couple of big wins against BCS schools ( like Boise St) they get an at-large.

 

But they don't deserve to be AUTOMATICALLY included in any national title discussion or even a national title tournament.

 

You do have a point but you failed. You were being flip. When every year a "nobody" team is beating the pants off a BCS team, you can't say they're not worth considering. Right now, if Boise State was looking to change conferences, there'd be a freakin' bidding war as the Pac-10 and Big-10 fought to see who would get them. The same can be said for Utah. There are plenty of teams in non-BCS conferences not named Notre Dame who would fit in marvelously in BCS conferences (and be highly coveted).

 

While I would agree that the WAC isn't on the level of the SEC or Big-12, let's be real here. Neither is the Pac-10. One conference has three legit national title contenders year in and year out and the other.....usually has ONE (if that, like this year). Put in a conference strength metric when seeding conference champions. Problem solved.

 

for them, Winning the sun belt WOULD be like winning the Big Ten

 

Sorry, I don't think playoffs should involve consolation prizes. Because your 8-4 team beat another 8-4 team (or beat a 7-5 team) doesn't put you on the same level as the 12-1, 13-0, 11-2 teams. BUT, if the Sun Belt champ goes 12-1 and beats the eventual SEC or Big-12 champ (or even a participant in those conference's championship game), they should be given some consideration for higher seeding than the #4 team in the SEC (who could have a similar record, though a stronger SoS (strength of schedule) due to conference games). Losing to Florida isn't as bad as losing to Fresno State, after all.

 

Promotion/Relegation system will not work in US college athletics.

 

 

16 teams playoff. Just take the top 16 teams in the BCS standings so you can still give theme a bit of an ego stroke.

 

They use 16 teams in what was 1AA and D2. They use 32 teams in D3.

 

Quick, name the billion dollar figures at stake with what was I-AA, D2, and D3? Whaddaya mean no one's paying that kinda money to see those games? Should be the same thing, right? I mean, you're using them for comparison!

 

Point is, there aren't billions of dollars of TV and sponsor deals at stake at the FCS and D2/D3 levels. There aint a school at the I-AA level that can fill an 80,000 seat stadium on a regular basis. That's what the difference is and why you can't just handwave those concerns. A playoff would be a HUGE money loser for the schools affected since you won't have 6-6 teams playing bowl games and taking home a cool half million win or lose. When the #4 team in the WAC plays the #3 team from the MAC in a bowl game sponsored by a small chain of truck stops, you know they aren't going to go gently into that good night.

 

You will not have a playoff at the FBS level in your lifetime. Sad, but these contracts go out up to 10 years and the money being earned by all sides is too great.

[mad5226]

You do have a point but you failed. You were being flip. When every year a "nobody" team is beating the pants off a BCS team, you can't say they're not worth considering. Right now, if Boise State was looking to change conferences, there'd be a freakin' bidding war as the Pac-10 and Big-10 fought to see who would get them. The same can be said for Utah. There are plenty of teams in non-BCS conferences not named Notre Dame who would fit in marvelously in BCS conferences (and be highly coveted).

 

While I would agree that the WAC isn't on the level of the SEC or Big-12, let's be real here. Neither is the Pac-10. One conference has three legit national title contenders year in and year out and the other.....usually has ONE (if that, like this year). Put in a conference strength metric when seeding conference champions. Problem solved.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't think playoffs should involve consolation prizes. Because your 8-4 team beat another 8-4 team (or beat a 7-5 team) doesn't put you on the same level as the 12-1, 13-0, 11-2 teams. BUT, if the Sun Belt champ goes 12-1 and beats the eventual SEC or Big-12 champ (or even a participant in those conference's championship game), they should be given some consideration for higher seeding than the #4 team in the SEC (who could have a similar record, though a stronger SoS (strength of schedule) due to conference games). Losing to Florida isn't as bad as losing to Fresno State, after all.

 

 

 

Quick, name the billion dollar figures at stake with what was I-AA, D2, and D3? Whaddaya mean no one's paying that kinda money to see those games? Should be the same thing, right? I mean, you're using them for comparison!

 

Point is, there aren't billions of dollars of TV and sponsor deals at stake at the FCS and D2/D3 levels. There aint a school at the I-AA level that can fill an 80,000 seat stadium on a regular basis. That's what the difference is and why you can't just handwave those concerns. A playoff would be a HUGE money loser for the schools affected since you won't have 6-6 teams playing bowl games and taking home a cool half million win or lose. When the #4 team in the WAC plays the #3 team from the MAC in a bowl game sponsored by a small chain of truck stops, you know they aren't going to go gently into that good night.

 

You will not have a playoff at the FBS level in your lifetime. Sad, but these contracts go out up to 10 years and the money being earned by all sides is too great.

 

 

The bolded part is the only thing I'm going to comment on. While you're right that there are non-BCS teams who could be just as "coveted" as Notre Dame, none of them can bring in the money that the Irish can. And at the end of the day that's all these people care about is money.