congrats, florida!

[Derwood]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

[rawaction]

i guess i'm just not convinced that two extra games is some kind of tipping point where smashing into each other becomes overly dangerous. 13 games is ok, but 14-15 is too much?

 

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games.

 

Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing.

[Mephistopheles]

What about the fact that you are asking 18-22 year olds STUDENTS to play 3 games in addition to the 12 regular season games, and possibly a conference championship game? They'd be playing way into January. If you cut out regular season games, then you lose some of what determines the top 8 teams.

 

appy state played 15 games this year...

[rawaction]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

 

And create a homefield advantage for presumably the top teams. You might as well take the teams that will have homefield anyway and put them in the championship, since chances are that's gonna happen anyway.

[Derwood]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

 

And create a homefield advantage for presumably the top teams. You might as well take the teams that will have homefield anyway and put them in the championship, since chances are that's gonna happen anyway.

 

correct. you award the BCS 1-4 with homefield advantage. Sorta like every other sport on the planet

[CubColtPacer]

i guess i'm just not convinced that two extra games is some kind of tipping point where smashing into each other becomes overly dangerous. 13 games is ok, but 14-15 is too much?

 

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games.

 

Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing.

 

And the reason the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing is for the exact reason that goony is describing. Who wins the NCAA tourney is a secondary concern The greatest part of the tournament (and the conference tournaments) is that there are lots of fun games to watch going on at the same time, and that creates many close finishes. The first 4 days of the tournament are the absolute best, as it goes on the tournament becomes less interesting.

[rawaction]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

 

And create a homefield advantage for presumably the top teams. You might as well take the teams that will have homefield anyway and put them in the championship, since chances are that's gonna happen anyway.

 

correct. you award the BCS 1-4 with homefield advantage. Sorta like every other sport on the planet

 

Then 1-4 will likely win the first round. 1-2 will have a huge advantage in the 2nd round. Why waste time, and just put 1-2 in a championship game? And the every other sport argument doesn't apply to college football, you have 109 teams vying for 8 spots and most of those teams don't play each other or even all the teams in their conference.

[rawaction]

i guess i'm just not convinced that two extra games is some kind of tipping point where smashing into each other becomes overly dangerous. 13 games is ok, but 14-15 is too much?

 

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games.

 

Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing.

 

And the reason the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing is for the exact reason that goony is describing. Who wins the NCAA tourney is a secondary concern The greatest part of the tournament (and the conference tournaments) is that there are lots of fun games to watch going on at the same time, and that creates many close finishes. The first 4 days of the tournament are the absolute best, as it goes on the tournament becomes less interesting.

 

Well we both got 2 different things out of that.

[CubColtPacer]

i guess i'm just not convinced that two extra games is some kind of tipping point where smashing into each other becomes overly dangerous. 13 games is ok, but 14-15 is too much?

 

And on the other hand, I'm not convinced a longer tournament is going to solve anything. There will still be controversy. And quite frankly, I don't go into college football season dying to know who the national champ is going to be. I just love watching college football games. I know it's against accepted behavior, but I think the NCAA tourney is an unwieldy beast of a joke that doesn't come close to rewarding the best team in basketball. Sure it plays well on tv and is a cultural icon, but it's not the greatest thing out there. I'm the same way with NFL overtime whining. Why anybody thinks the college way is the right way is beyond me. If you don't win in the first 60 minutes, and you lose without getting a chance in OT, too freaking bad. You should have scored more when you had the chance. If you lose an early college season game and get left out of the hunt despite thinking you are the best team, oh well, don't lose next time. Championships don't really crown the best team, they crown the winner of a handful of games at most. It's awesome to win one and sucks when you lose, I'm not claiming otherwise. But the fact is that no matter the system, people are always going to be clamoring for it to be changed. I'd rather enjoy watching the games.

 

Basically how I feel, which is why I am arguing the way I am. Except the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing.

 

And the reason the NCAA tourney is the greatest thing is for the exact reason that goony is describing. Who wins the NCAA tourney is a secondary concern The greatest part of the tournament (and the conference tournaments) is that there are lots of fun games to watch going on at the same time, and that creates many close finishes. The first 4 days of the tournament are the absolute best, as it goes on the tournament becomes less interesting.

 

Well we both got 2 different things out of that.

 

Yeah, I focused on the bolded parts, while you probably focused on the italicized parts. Finding a champion is somewhat important, but having great games each week is more important to me. The NCAA tournament does a terrible job of finding the best team or even the most deserving team (there's a lot of luck in it). However, it is the most fun because of the amount of games between equally matched teams.

[Derwood]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

 

And create a homefield advantage for presumably the top teams. You might as well take the teams that will have homefield anyway and put them in the championship, since chances are that's gonna happen anyway.

 

correct. you award the BCS 1-4 with homefield advantage. Sorta like every other sport on the planet

 

Then 1-4 will likely win the first round. 1-2 will have a huge advantage in the 2nd round. Why waste time, and just put 1-2 in a championship game? And the every other sport argument doesn't apply to college football, you have 109 teams vying for 8 spots and most of those teams don't play each other or even all the teams in their conference.

 

actually, it's 120 teams. How is homefield unfair in CFB but not the NFL?

[swordsman]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

[Warpticon]

To division I-b:

UConn

Cinc.

Rutgers

Louisville

South Florida

 

Haha, ridiculous.

What is so ridiculous? They cannot compete year in and year out.

 

Most teams can't compete year in and year out. Are you gonna restructure every conference every time there's a shift in power? Four of the teams you advocate demoting have been in the top 20 this year. I just...wow.

 

Seriously, the level of nonsense is mindblowing. This is embarassingly bad.

[Soul]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

[CubColtPacer]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Not to mention that's essentially what the system was like before the BCS, and yet that didn't stop people from declaring national champions every year. The BCS just added a more objective and standard way to do that.

[rawaction]

if you scrap the bowl games and make the first two rounds of the playoff on-campus, you eliminate travel for half the teams

 

And create a homefield advantage for presumably the top teams. You might as well take the teams that will have homefield anyway and put them in the championship, since chances are that's gonna happen anyway.

 

correct. you award the BCS 1-4 with homefield advantage. Sorta like every other sport on the planet

 

Then 1-4 will likely win the first round. 1-2 will have a huge advantage in the 2nd round. Why waste time, and just put 1-2 in a championship game? And the every other sport argument doesn't apply to college football, you have 109 teams vying for 8 spots and most of those teams don't play each other or even all the teams in their conference.

 

actually, it's 120 teams. How is homefield unfair in CFB but not the NFL?

 

I never said it was unfair. It's just pointless. If you are gonna give an advantage to the top teams, why not just go with the top teams like you already are with the BCS championship game? It's clear the point of having a tournament format in college football is to get a clear cut champions. It's not clear cut, when it's not a neutral playing field. The NFL again is a different beast, because of the number of teams. NOT playing 108 teams of your competition is a lot different from NOT playing 19 (that goes to 7 if you consider conferences, which should be considered because the AFC can't play the NFC until the SB).

[CubinNY]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Not to mention that's essentially what the system was like before the BCS, and yet that didn't stop people from declaring national champions every year. The BCS just added a more objective and standard way to do that.

 

Perhaps a little more objective than what preceded it, but not even close to objective.

 

If we take goony's position, then they should go back to the way it was.

 

If we take the opposite, then they need to let the championship be decided on the field and not by sports writers and coaches.

 

Either way, they should do away with the BCS.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Not to mention that's essentially what the system was like before the BCS, and yet that didn't stop people from declaring national champions every year. The BCS just added a more objective and standard way to do that.

 

Perhaps a little more objective than what preceded it, but not even close to objective.

 

If we take goony's position, then they should go back to the way it was.

 

If we take the opposite, then they need to let the championship be decided on the field and not by sports writers and coaches.

Either way, they should do away with the BCS.

 

The championship is already mostly decided on the field. Coaches and writers have input, but by and large, the best team gets a chance to win its last game and be crowned champ. You still have to win games, both regular season and bowl, to win a championship.

[CubinNY]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Not to mention that's essentially what the system was like before the BCS, and yet that didn't stop people from declaring national champions every year. The BCS just added a more objective and standard way to do that.

 

Perhaps a little more objective than what preceded it, but not even close to objective.

 

If we take goony's position, then they should go back to the way it was.

 

If we take the opposite, then they need to let the championship be decided on the field and not by sports writers and coaches.

Either way, they should do away with the BCS.

 

The championship is already mostly decided on the field. Coaches and writers have input, but by and large, the best team gets a chance to win its last game and be crowned champ. You still have to win games, both regular season and bowl, to win a championship.

This is true, but for the most part it matters when you loose and how high you were ranked before you lost. A case can be made that LSU is the best team this year, yet shouldn't be in the championship game.

 

But really I guess I'm just a bored as you are as I really couldn't care less; I'm pretty much playing devil's advocate (poorly) in this thread.

[apete6]

Where's the Big East?

I'd disband the conference and fold:

 

 

Pac 10 (10 schools)

Big 12 (12 schools)

SEC (12 schools)

 

ACC (9 schools)+:

Pitt

WVU

Syracuse

 

Big 10 (11 schools)+:

ND

 

To division I-b:

UConn

Cinc.

Rutgers

Louisville

South Florida

 

This is the worst idea ever. Syracuse has been terrible for like 4 years and in that time, all of these other teams have been pounding them, but Syracuse gets the ACC and the rest of the Big East goes to hell?

 

I just can't explain how bad of an idea that is. But, hey, Syracuse had Jim Brown once, so they must be a great program. :roll:

[CubinNY]

This is the worst idea ever.

 

I've had ideas way worse than that.

[swordsman]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.)

 

Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

This is the worst idea ever.

 

I've had ideas way worse than that.

now that's funny

[Soul]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.)

 

Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

 

Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them.

 

The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths.

[swordsman]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.)

 

Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

 

Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them.

 

The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths.

 

That's why you just eliminate the concept of naming a National Champ. People can argue about who was the best team of a given year forever. They do anyway and this way there won't be any convoluted BCS or playoff system to muck it up. Every argument can be ended with "I guess we'll never know." What a fun way to pass the time between the last pitch of the world series and spring training.

[Soul]

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.

 

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for.

 

Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home.

 

Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease.

 

Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.)

 

Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

 

Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them.

 

The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths.

 

That's why you just eliminate the concept of naming a National Champ. People can argue about who was the best team of a given year forever. They do anyway and this way there won't be any convoluted BCS or playoff system to muck it up. Every argument can be ended with "I guess we'll never know." What a fun way to pass the time between the last pitch of the world series and spring training.

 

Yet people don't argue hypotheticals about the Super Bowl champ, even when it winds up being the 6 seed as it was 2 years ago with Pittsburgh. That's what a playoff gives you. Sure you can say the Pats and Colts were better that year, but the argument ends with "well they shouldn't have blown it in the playoffs then."

 

Big difference. At least for me anyway.