U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-07-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406

Advertisements

Quote:
You are obviously fundamentally against playoffs/tournaments. The setup makes perfect logical sense to me with a 12 team conference... In addition, as I eluded to in a previous post, the long seasons and championship games evolved because no NCAA tourney was in place. It essentially became a conference's way to have its own mini tourney/playoff. So Obviously schools wanted it.
"You are obviously fundamentally against playoffs/tournaments."

No, I'm fundamentally, totally, inequivaquobly, passionately for playoffs/tournaments.

always have been. always will be.

Here's my deal....

• make it an 8 team championship

• Play the first round in 4 New Years bowl (Let's say the Rose, Sugar, and Orange were locks. I as the traditionalist might switch back to the Cotton Bowl where your more forward look might keep the Fiesta. either way...no problem with me)

• only conference champs are invited to the dance. That's the real reason why I'd like to see 8 conferences. First of all, 8 would do the geographic trick and spead them around the country. every region would be covered, even if some regional fringes (the Dakotas, upper New England, the far northern regions of he Rockies) might not make the cut. I want conference champs because I truly believe it is the fairest way to build the field of eight.

this is what I think: you can't compare conferences. and to do so is unfair. And you wild cards out there? If you want to get invited, then win your conference, shut up, and stop your whining. An eight team field is for accomplished winners, something you are when you win your conference.


• To start with, the interconference games are earlier in the season. As I noted before they are the equivalent of exhibitions in the NFL on the basis of readiness and preparation to play (I realize, of course, they are games that count, unlike NFL exhibitions, and I like it that way.)

• Not only are those early season games a poor measure of a team's ability, there is no rhyme or reason to the scheduling. There is a good chance that the games being played between one conference and another would have precious few or no overlaps. to make matters worse, if the midmajors are being played in these games, there would be no overlap.

Let's compare two conferences, the Big Ten, my conference, and the SEC. If you asked this Big Ten fan which conference is better in football, my answer would be SEC, hands down.

But there is nothing I could do to solidly prove that notion. They play very few games against each other and those are early season games.

I'd be for awarding conference winners because this is an accomplishment. Especially if it were a 12 team league. As noted, I'd go with an 11 game round robin....no championship game unless 2 teams tie and play other or 3 or more tie where formula (point differential, head to head) becomes the criteria.

Here's where I go back to that notion of "have your cake and eat it, too."

A 12 team race is far more exciting than two divisions of six teams each. So conference races, arguably 8 of them in my set up, each provides interest in their regular season battle for supremacy. That give you one of things you want: national appeal. I would suggest to you that as a fan, you'd be far more interested in seeing what's going on in other regions if the focus was on a race between conference schools for those very limited slots. Remember: we'll see a school from each conference in the championship series so all conferences become interesting, not only the ones that might end up with one of only two teams in the current BCS fight for supremacy.

You tout the national game. I'm for it, too. I would gladly watch games broadcasted from around the nation if they were involved with the excitement of coming in on top of a 12 team race.

Further meeting your (and my) needs: the conference champ going to the big dance dance frees schools from the battle of the polls. What does that mean? It means that Ohio State can schedule USC or Alabama, or Texas or any of the big guys in an exciting early season game (OSU-UT have had some good ones) without a single fear that in so scheduling they may be knocked out of championship competition at year's end. That's because they get their ticket through the Big Ten, not how they rank vs. other schools. Indeed, Ohio State may find that Texas game better sets them up for the Nebraskas and Wisconsins and Michigans they will face in the regular season.

For the life of me, GE, I'm really not sure where we have all that many aspects of disagreement, although I suspect you'd award wild cards while I wouldn't (and you'd be in the majority in desiring them. As I said, from my perspective, I'm sticking with the You-can't-compare-conferences-fairly mantra)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2011, 01:41 PM
 
1,359 posts, read 4,385,936 times
Reputation: 771
People often forget how it used to be....you would often have co-champions each season because they played in conferences that were tied to certain bowl games. A lot of the classic games of the last decade wouldn't have been possible under the old system, or at least would have been very unlikely to have happened.

I believe it was you, Mr. GE that posted a link to that Mr. SEC site. There was a good essay on there that pointed out that this type of realignment isn't really anything new in college football.

The best way to preserve tradition is to try to work with the changes that are coming. To cling to the past and try to keep things the way they are is to risk losing it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 03:42 PM
 
Location: The "Rock"
2,551 posts, read 2,418,632 times
Reputation: 1322
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_cuyler View Post
The best way to preserve tradition is to try to work with the changes that are coming. To cling to the past and try to keep things the way they are is to risk losing it all.
completey agree...


Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
For the life of me, GE, I'm really not sure where we have all that many aspects of disagreement, although I suspect you'd award wild cards while I wouldn't (and you'd be in the majority in desiring them. As I said, from my perspective, I'm sticking with the You-can't-compare-conferences-fairly mantra)
Do you not remember on my very first post I pointed out that I didnt really disagree with your sentiment... only the premise?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
In addition, I don't really disagree with your overall sentiment... but

I disagree with the premise of this assumption.

So I'm with your overall... and I understand that.

I just disagree with the premise that it needs to go back to how it was. Your scenario for a playoff is not possible based on the current landscape. It's not going backwards to get to that scenario either. So knowing that...

why are you not for the expansion and consolidation of the conferences into 64 teams to make a 4x 16 team conferences to get to a playoff?

So what if the conferences are bigger... if some traditions are lost... if money drives this... if some schools are not a part of it...

most traditions will not be lost. new traditions will be created. and a lot of money will be made. and you said yourself that most schools have not shot anyway. a playoff will happen for the ones who do or think they do and everyone is happy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
most traditions will not be lost. new traditions will be created. and a lot of money will be made. and you said yourself that most schools have not shot anyway. a playoff will happen for the ones who do or think they do and everyone is happy.
i wonder if i see dangers that you don't see or, at least, don't view as dangers.

first let me make this point:

i have nothing against the concept of majors and mid-majors. I don't mind the division into BCS and FBS.

what is the essence of the BCS schools. Well, they're called major because they are major. The majority, of course, are state universities. But they are a special breed of public university. Traditionally (this does not hold up in all cases, mind you), they are made of the one or two flagship public universities in most states (only a few states, very small, are excluded).

What you've seen is schools like Illinois, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Maryland, etc., represent their state as the soul public flagship.

Other states like Indiana (IU, Purdue), Michigan (U-M, MSU), Florida (UF, FSU), Arizona (UA, ASU), Alabama (Bama, Auburn) etc., have two public flagship instituitions, both part of the majors.

Traditionally the private schools that make the majors do so because of their national reputations. They tend to be (but not always are) the academic elite of private education minus the Ivy League which plays at a different level.

They struggle in football often (but not always) due to their small enrollment, smaller fan base, and high admission standards that do affect athletics. Still, they are icons of the game, having been part so long and part of instiutions that do carry a lot of weight. Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, Wake, Vanderbilt, etc. Once it included Tulane and Rice. And, of course, it also includes the highly successful SC and ND programs.

mid-majors are also heavy on state schools, but those state schools often have a regional, not state wide appeal, you know, the directional schools. Or they may have specialized curriculum. Either way, they just don't have the statewide focus and swim in a small pond, usually one with a 30,000 seat stadium.

It's fine that these two operate in different spheres. And it would be fine if the NCAA let them each have their own play-off.

But this is where my concern comes in:

I think when you start parsing the so called BCS schools based on the strength of programs, the have's and the have not's, the tampering will not be healthy for the game.

It is not going to be healthy if two states with the same demographic numbers working together get shifted into two different set ups because one operates as a power program and one does not.

If such happens, interest will be cut nationally. If competition is pushed down in some states because interest and/or competitive level isn't there, places like Indiana (IU, Purdue), Kansas (Kansas, K-State), etc., people in those states will not follow the high level division set up and championship.

And those schools that do embrace it will appear "athletic elite" and thus "athletic overemphasised" which hurts them in the long run.

Oklahoma can hardly justify OU playing highest level ball if Kansas's KU is not in the system. It just doesn't make sense.

An elite set up could kill interest below in it and taint those who join.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2011, 06:01 PM
 
Location: The "Rock"
2,551 posts, read 2,418,632 times
Reputation: 1322
I really don't care if states like Kansas loses interest... They are a non-factor in football.

It wont matter if Kansas, new Mexico, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Idaho, and any of the states in the north east outside of NY lose interest. All of the other states in the continental US will have a representative and some will have more... Sounds great to me. Not sure why that a problem. Those states not in don't need to be. It is what it is.

And I think the 64 should leave the NCAA and become a private league... I don't care what the rest do. they would have to figure that out. Not my concern. My concern is major college football.

Last edited by Mr. GE; 10-07-2011 at 07:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2011, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. GE View Post
I really don't care if states like Kansas loses interest... They are a non-factor in football.

It wont matter if Kansas, new Mexico, Wyoming, both Dakotas, Idaho, and any of the states in the north east outside of NY lose interest. All of the other states in the continental US will have a representative and some will have more... Sounds great to me. Not sure why that a problem. Those states not in don't need to be. It is what it is.

And I think the 64 should leave the NCAA and become a private league... I don't care what the rest do. they would have to figure that out. Not my concern. My concern is major college football.
you personally might not care, Mr. GE, but that doesn't mean the results of such moves won't hurt you.

Look, I see your point about the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc.

But Kansas? Kansas is part of that population group that contributes endless number of schools, major programs in fact, to the BCS conferences. KU doesn't suffer from demographic problems regarding football (even though it does heavily and understandably on out-of-state recruitment); it suffers as a basketball school with a limited interest in football.

But if KU is out of the system, how many others are? And if that is the case and you are set with a strong "power base" that almost gives no indication of why should it be there (I mean, logically should OU be in and KU out or Tennessee in and Kentucky out or Iowa in and Indiana out strictly on the basis of how energized their football programs are).

You end up with a spotty, small group of schools that knocks the idea of "college" literally out of the equation. And what it will mean is that the NFL will run rings around college football which will have forfeited the very traditional and colorful and campus related aura that has made the game great.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2011, 08:07 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406
one other point, Mr. GE. now this merely speculation on my part, but speculation that I think makes a lot of sense.

What happens if this more elite group of college programs form their smaller circle? I've already mentioned some of the outside forces that would make it difficult.

but there are also some that might make it impossible.

I'm sure neither you nor I could come up with a definitive group about who is in and who is out. But I suspect that among state universities, state universities being the ones that dominate the sport, there will be cases on one school in and one out.

And if that were the case, you could have problems. Think of the founding of the Big 12. The Texas state legislature made sure that the state's 3 most state-wide public institutions...UT, A&M, TT.....were included. They even stretched the envelope by insisting that private Baylor be a part.

While funding from the states to pubic u's is way lower than it once was, they still call a lot of the shots.

So what are the chances that the Iowa legislature will allow Iowa to be an "in" and Iowa State an "out" (although on the field, the Hawkeyes make that argument over the Cylones with regularity). same would be true of Oregon and Oregon State. Ole Miss and Miss State. Washington and WSU. and others.

I think you'd find a lot of resistence from powers that count in trying to set up that elite system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2011, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406
Default pure lunacy

pure lunacy; they are going to destroy this friggin' game.

Bruce Musberger, along with Kirk Herbstreit, were covering last night's Stanford-USC game.

Musberger noted what a sheer crime it was what the other conferences are doing to the Big East, picking apart its bones piece by piece.

The NL and AL figured they belonged together at the turn of the 20th century. The NFL and AFL did so in the 1960s.

and college football continues to be a predatory sport, each fiefdom sucking the competition dry.

Yes, they are picking apart the Big East. And tried to do the same to the Big Twelve (I guess the jury is still out on that one).

College conferences that were in place for decades (or longer) reassemble, often on the whim of "which domino will next fall." It's pure canibalism as the game devours itself.

The Big Ten stretches from Pennsylvania to Nebraska, the ACC from Boston to Miami, the Big Twelve from West Virginia to Texas, the SEC from Missouri to Florida, and the Pac 12 from the shores of the Pacific to the high plains of Boulder.

Nothing makes sense. Geography and rivalries and a sense of place has been destroyed.

No one should be held back by tradition if change is warranted. But we get change without meaning, change that is actually regressive and will destroy a game with deep traditional roots.

Decisions are made in a heart beat as old alliances that were in place for near a century are shattered.

What on earth is the point of all this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Waco, TX
977 posts, read 1,632,949 times
Reputation: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25 View Post
What on earth is the point of all this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2011, 05:03 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,962 posts, read 6,576,308 times
Reputation: 5406
money? jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez. why didn't I think of that!?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > College Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top