College Football

Mystery Man said:
Yes I watch all the bowl games and yes I know it goes on now. That's my point, nothing will change. Coaches, schools, fans etc will always complain much as they do now not matter what kind of playoff system they create. It will suck just as bad as the bowl system (if you think it sucks) does now.

The bowl system does not suck. If you switch to a playoff things will change. If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining. The biggest complaint with a bowl system is the split national championship that we had last year. That's impossible with a playoff.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Crothian said:
The bowl system does not suck. If you switch to a playoff things will change. If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining. The biggest complaint with a bowl system is the split national championship that we had last year. That's impossible with a playoff.
I'd disagree here. The system does suck. The non-BCS bowls are meaningless, the teams involved in lesser bowls (and even the at-large teams in the BCS bowls, other than BCS #1 and BCS #2) are selected for ability to draw fans or a TV audience, rather than quality, half the time the BCS championship game wasn't a true #1 vs. #2 game, there's no mechanism for a team that gets hot late in the year and plays its way into the top ten to get a shot at the title, and for all the contrivances of the BCS, the system still managed to produce a split title last year.
 
Last edited:

Crothian said:
There are more then that in 1A basketball and they have a playoff system.....
There's no split between I-A and I-AA in basketball; there's just Division I (and II and III; my alma mater played Division III sports). So there are 326 teams involved.

The 31 conference champions automatically qualify. The selection committee then chooses 34 at-large teams.
 

drothgery said:
I'd disagree here. The system does suck. The non-BCS bowls are meaningless,

Meaningless to who? The kids that get to go to the bowl games love it. Their fans enjoy seeing them on a national stage, and lots of times these games are actually pretty good. I know a lot of announcers and commentors don't like the smaller bowl games and call them meaningless but I think they are missing the point.

I do agree though that a playoff would be better. Bowls are too motivated by the dollar. They are predjudice against the smaller schools. THere is improvements to ber had, but I still enjoy the bowl games and make a point to watch most of them.
 



Crothian said:
Meaningless to who? The kids that get to go to the bowl games love it. Their fans enjoy seeing them on a national stage, and lots of times these games are actually pretty good. I know a lot of announcers and commentors don't like the smaller bowl games and call them meaningless but I think they are missing the point.
I'm sure the players like taking trip to a tourist-trap city and hanging out there for a week. I'm sure fans who go to the games enjoy them. But lesser bowls are often played in half-empty stadiums, and have no impact on the national title chase (or even conference title chases); about the only value they provide is giving the teams involved some extra practice for next year.
 

drothgery said:
I'm sure the players like taking trip to a tourist-trap city and hanging out there for a week. I'm sure fans who go to the games enjoy them. But lesser bowls are often played in half-empty stadiums, and have no impact on the national title chase (or even conference title chases); about the only value they provide is giving the teams involved some extra practice for next year.

Well, only one bowl game has impact on the national title game. LAst year with thje mess up we had two. But that did not make any of those other games less exciting. Bowl games and playoffs are always after the regular season and will never matter in a conference title; conference titles actually need to be first as that determines what teams play in what bowls.

They provide national expsure to the school. For recruitment the team can say we went to the Fiesta Bowl and we beat a very good Kansas State team that won the Big Twelve.

I don't see why a bowl game has to have any meaning expect as a reward to schools who have had very good seasons. There are many schools who know they are not going to be in the national title picture, but they can work hard and still goto a bowl game.
 

Mystery Man said:
Crothian said:
If it is done fairly giving the midmajors a chance there will be much less complaining.
Big if there. That's my point. It's almost going to be impossible to do.
Again, the NCAA manages to fill out a tournament for every other sport, and for lower-division football. You're basically saying that since selecting teams can't be perfect, let's not have playoffs. And that's silly. In a 16-team field (which is what the NCAA uses for lower-division football), you'd have five at-large spots. Arguing over the last one or two in is not a big deal, and neither are fans of the last team out complaining that they're certainly better than the Sun Belt champ (even though it'll probably be true).
 

Crothian said:
I don't see why a bowl game has to have any meaning expect as a reward to schools who have had very good seasons. There are many schools who know they are not going to be in the national title picture, but they can work hard and still goto a bowl game.
And if there were ten or fifteen bowl games, that's what the bowls would be. But there aren't ten or fifteen bowl games. There are 28. And a game involving the third-place team in the MAC or the 7th-place team in the Big 12 does not provide an interesting game to anyone except the most devoted fans of the teams in question.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top