|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
The main reason why they don't want to change to a play off system is because the value of the championship games and the bowl games would drop a lot, which means a lot of money lost in the process.
For example, let's take a look at the SEC championship. And for this example, lets say Florida was an undefeated team instead of a 1-loss team it is at the moment. If Florida and Bama were both undefeated, they would be #1 and #2 in the BCS ranks. If they played each other in the SEC championship, it wouldn't really matter since a 1-loss UF or Bama team would not likely fall below the 8th rank (provided that the playoff started from the top 8).
But with the current BCS system, the SEC championship becomes a HUGE deal (and LOTS of $$) since only one team can go to the championship.
So then you might say, "well lets have only 1 team per conference enter the playoffs". Well already that's a problem, since we come come back to the original problem where OU, TTech, and Texas are all in the same conference, putting us back to square one.
This is just one example, all in all they stand to lose too much money by abandoning all the bowl games right now.
|
Braavos36389 Posts
though if there is enough pressure to move to a playoff system (every year that a team gets screwed out of the BCS title game, another supporter), they will eventually change
yes it'd be a big risk with regards to the bowl games and generally anything that involves this much money always has this much red tape, but eventually i think it'll happen
|
If it ever happens I think it would be a long time from now.
Long time.
|
Hopefully it will happen in the next 5 years or so. If it turned into a March Madness type of frenzy that would be so much more intense than sitting at my comp hitting f5 4pm every sunday.
|
On November 25 2008 03:15 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2. the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football. Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid) big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway. Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too)
Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
|
^ I am not sure, but I think the major factor is just the travel and amount of school a team would have to miss in a cross country conference.
|
On November 25 2008 05:13 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 03:15 Sadist wrote:On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2. the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football. Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid) big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway. Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too) Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography?
Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too.
Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
|
Seems like it's the same thing every year. Whoever is not in top two, but in top 8 BCS the coaches for their teams press for a playoff. OU pushing for it and TT pushing for it. Even though OU will jump TX if they win next week.
|
On November 25 2008 06:53 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 05:13 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2008 03:15 Sadist wrote:On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2. the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football. Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid) big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway. Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too) Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography? Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
Then ND has to be in there too lol.
|
On November 25 2008 06:53 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 05:13 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2008 03:15 Sadist wrote:On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2. the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football. Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid) big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway. Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too) Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography? Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries.
Why must rivals be in the same division? And, again, why must geography be the basis on which a conference is split into divisions?
|
On November 25 2008 07:19 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 06:53 Sadist wrote:On November 25 2008 05:13 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2008 03:15 Sadist wrote:On November 25 2008 03:01 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Yes it would, take the top 8 teams and have a playoff. The BCS SUCKS at pinpointing the exact order but it generally has the top 8 teams pinpointed. It would be viable and not only that. it would be more exciting because anyone of the top 8 could win it all instead of everyone holding their breath the last week of the season to see if the computer loves them enough to rank them 1 or 2. the college football regular season is awesome, but just imagine if it was like march madness in football. Holy shit how sick would that be. 8 teams would be awesome, they should have every conference have a conf championship game though to make it fair (and that way there are no ties for conference championships which are stupid) big 10 would be crazy imbalanced for divisions though, michigan osu psu indiana and msu,purdue, and then the other division ;\very rarely does the bcs ever get the championship game right anyway. Its just luckboxed its way in with Texas USC a few years ago, every other year there has pretty much been a beef. (I guess FSU vs VT worked out too) Is there a rule saying that a conference with divisions has to be divided based on geography? Michigan and OSU would have to be in the same division, MSU would have to be in there too. Maybe if you did north vs south ? The most logical seems east vs west though. Have to preserve the rivalries. Then ND has to be in there too lol.
ND should be in the Big Ten. Fuck ND and its stupid television contract.
|
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year.
edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
|
On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote:
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year.
why?
edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography.
meh
|
Is anyone else extremely happy that ND is shitting the bed once again? I hate everything about that school, and I'm so happy that Fatso is basically done after this season. Way to ride a cheater's coattails to a job, you cocky douchebag.
|
On November 25 2008 07:29 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote:
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year. why? meh
why do they have to play every year? Did you really just ask that?
|
On November 25 2008 07:34 Hawk wrote:
Is anyone else extremely happy that ND is shitting the bed once again? I hate everything about that school, and I'm so happy that Fatso is basically done after this season. Way to ride a cheater's coattails to a job, you cocky douchebag.
You think they will fire him? I doubt it, they signed him to a 10 year contract, theyd have to pay him like 20 mil lol
|
On November 25 2008 07:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 07:29 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote:
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year. why? edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography. meh why do they have to play every year? Did you really just ask that?
No, I asked why the have to be in the same division to play every year.
|
Live2Win
United States6657 Posts
On November 25 2008 07:29 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote:
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year. why? meh
uh, because that's where most rivalries spawn. It's now that rival schools are placed in the same conference, more like schools in the same conference become rivals.
Geography matters because this is not the NFL, and schools need to think about the athlete's education as well as sports. It's another reason why they don't want to have a play-off, because a playoff means more games which means longer season for everyone. Then there's the money involved in having to fly across the coutry for some unranked team you're going to smash anyways.
With closer games schools save up money on traveling and scheduling.
On the other hand I wonder how Hawaii does it.... they must fly to every single away game they have.
|
Not being in a conference makes it more difficult to recruit too. Talking about ND.
|
On November 25 2008 07:51 Live2Win wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2008 07:29 Mindcrime wrote:On November 25 2008 07:24 Sadist wrote:
Rivals have to be in the same division so they play every year. why? edit:
and also it makes traveling easier if they are split by geography. meh uh, because that's where most rivalries spawn. It's now that rival schools are placed in the same conference, more like schools in the same conference become rivals.
We're not talking about how rivalries come about. We're talking about the continuation of existing rivalries. OSU vs. Michigan doesn't become less of a rivalry when one of the teams sucks ass and it wouldn't become less of a rivalry if they were in separate divisions of the conference.
Geography matters because this is not the NFL, and schools need to think about the athlete's education as well as sports. It's another reason why they don't want to have a play-off, because a playoff means more games which means longer season for everyone. Then there's the money involved in having to fly across the coutry for some unranked team you're going to smash anyways.
With closer games schools save up money on traveling and scheduling.
On the other hand I wonder how Hawaii does it.... they must fly to every single away game they have.
We're talking about the Big Ten. Under the current system, Penn State already travels to play Iowa, OSU already travels to play Minnesota, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
