Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: NCAA College Football Playoffs?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default NCAA College Football Playoffs?

    I know this has probably been discussed before, but what the heck...

    I keep hearing people complain about it, and it occurs to me, there may be some misunderstandings as to why there isn't a playoff for Div. 1A college football. WinterBorn lamented that he thinks if TCU and Boise were in a NCG, it would "cause the powers that be to reconsider a playoff." Well, this isn't the problem. The "powers that be" would love to have a playoff, it's the academia who control the "powers that be" and they don't give one whit about football, who plays where, or for what, or anything other than the big fat pay check football brings to their university. As far as they are concerned, Harvard and Yale could play each year for "the championship" and that would satisfy them just fine.

    The problem is the length of the season, and it has been hard to budge these academic pinheads very much on that. They refuse to let the NCAA extend the season another 4-5 weeks, to accommodate a playoff, and especially given the "student-athlete" would have to travel each week to a venue way from campus, at a time when other student are taking finals, etc. So, while us football fans can bitch and moan about it, and come up with 'systems' and ways we think it could be done, the real problem is not finding a way to incorporate the bowl affiliates, but rather, how to satisfy academia.

    Then, there is the underlying issue which is seldom ever considered... What happens when we do have a playoff, and what is clearly the best football team in America, slips up and has a poor performance out of the gate, and gets knocked out of the brackets? Will we then have fans clamoring for a "best of 3 series?" Will people then be saying, yeah, so-and-so won the title, but they weren't the best team in college football that year? Seems to me, there will always be a controversy or question as to who is best, even WITH a playoff system. While I would love to see it played out and settled on the field, I think we already sort of do that now, and I can live with what we have.

  2. #2 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    I know this has probably been discussed before, but what the heck...

    I keep hearing people complain about it, and it occurs to me, there may be some misunderstandings as to why there isn't a playoff for Div. 1A college football. WinterBorn lamented that he thinks if TCU and Boise were in a NCG, it would "cause the powers that be to reconsider a playoff." Well, this isn't the problem. The "powers that be" would love to have a playoff, it's the academia who control the "powers that be" and they don't give one whit about football, who plays where, or for what, or anything other than the big fat pay check football brings to their university. As far as they are concerned, Harvard and Yale could play each year for "the championship" and that would satisfy them just fine.

    The problem is the length of the season, and it has been hard to budge these academic pinheads very much on that. They refuse to let the NCAA extend the season another 4-5 weeks, to accommodate a playoff, and especially given the "student-athlete" would have to travel each week to a venue way from campus, at a time when other student are taking finals, etc. So, while us football fans can bitch and moan about it, and come up with 'systems' and ways we think it could be done, the real problem is not finding a way to incorporate the bowl affiliates, but rather, how to satisfy academia.

    Then, there is the underlying issue which is seldom ever considered... What happens when we do have a playoff, and what is clearly the best football team in America, slips up and has a poor performance out of the gate, and gets knocked out of the brackets? Will we then have fans clamoring for a "best of 3 series?" Will people then be saying, yeah, so-and-so won the title, but they weren't the best team in college football that year? Seems to me, there will always be a controversy or question as to who is best, even WITH a playoff system. While I would love to see it played out and settled on the field, I think we already sort of do that now, and I can live with what we have.
    The academics is nonsense. Every other sport has a playoff system. They have a playoff in FCS division football, and those student athletes haven't flunked out. Its not the academics, its all about the money.

    As for the "clearly best team slips up" scenario, that is why you have playoffs. If you can't win then you don't win championships.

    Which is better, that a "clearly better" team loses one and falls out, or you have 3 or 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and no one knows who the best team is? Do you think Auburn in 2004 was better than a mythical superior team who loses in the playoffs?

    There are reasons why we don't have a playoff in NCAA football, but its none of those you listed. Its all about the cash.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
    The academics is nonsense. Every other sport has a playoff system. They have a playoff in FCS division football, and those student athletes haven't flunked out. Its not the academics, its all about the money.

    As for the "clearly best team slips up" scenario, that is why you have playoffs. If you can't win then you don't win championships.

    Which is better, that a "clearly better" team loses one and falls out, or you have 3 or 4 undefeated teams at the end of the year and no one knows who the best team is? Do you think Auburn in 2004 was better than a mythical superior team who loses in the playoffs?

    There are reasons why we don't have a playoff in NCAA football, but its none of those you listed. Its all about the cash.
    Yes, other sports do have championships, but in Div. 1AA for instance, they do it in 4 weeks, and they play at Home/Away venues and not bowls, and they have a slightly shorter regular season to accommodate the academics, which are also a little differently structured with regard to final exams and such, in those schools. You may think it's bullshit, and I may think it's bullshit, but that IS the reason we don't have a playoff system, not the money. In fact, the actual money would be considerably BETTER with a playoff system. You tell me the GMAC Bowl in Mobile wouldn't draw a larger TV audience and attendance, if it were Miami vs. Alabama, for a spot in the semi-final round, as opposed to Central Michigan vs. Troy? That might be a bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the point, the playoffs being played in the bowls would be hugely more popular than games which don't mean a damn thing. MONEY is NOT the reason they don't have a playoff. I'm telling you, it's academia!

    On the question of "who is best" in any given year, a playoff system might settle that, but I can envision scenarios where people would still be dissatisfied with the outcome. Where a dominating undefeated #1 ranked team, who had been #1 all year, and had beaten some great teams along the way, annihilated their opponent in a conference championship game, and then get upset the first game of the playoff by a cinderella team... everybody would be saying THEY were "the best" but so-and-so won the trophy... it wouldn't settle the issue clearly. This very thing has happened before with the NFL and the Super Bowl. We can get into examples, but you shouldn't be so fucking hard headed and determined to disagree with me on everything, that you can't comprehend what I am saying here.

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Las Cruces New Mexico
    Posts
    10,656
    Thanks
    260
    Thanked 1,630 Times in 874 Posts
    Groans
    8
    Groaned 39 Times in 33 Posts

    Default

    They were discussing this on a local radio station today. One of the solutions they were kicking around was a "plus one" system, which, if there were TWO undefeated teams at the end of the bowl game series, they would play a "plus one game" to determine the best team in the nation. But what if there are 3 undefeated's? What then. I rarely hear anyone complain about the play off system in the NFL, the question becomes how do you populate your backets? Top 16? Nope, that would leave out some conference champions that otherwise get bowl bids. All the major champions and some "at large" bids seem to me to be the best idea, but that would still piss people off. The bowl games are an anachronism. We do them because our forefathers do them. It's not fucking constitutional law, it's football. Get rid of the bowl games, have a playoff system and determine who the best team in college football is. Won't happen for at least another decade, but it will EVENTUALLY happen.

  5. #5 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Yes, other sports do have championships, but in Div. 1AA for instance, they do it in 4 weeks, and they play at Home/Away venues and not bowls, and they have a slightly shorter regular season to accommodate the academics, which are also a little differently structured with regard to final exams and such, in those schools. You may think it's bullshit, and I may think it's bullshit, but that IS the reason we don't have a playoff system, not the money. In fact, the actual money would be considerably BETTER with a playoff system. You tell me the GMAC Bowl in Mobile wouldn't draw a larger TV audience and attendance, if it were Miami vs. Alabama, for a spot in the semi-final round, as opposed to Central Michigan vs. Troy? That might be a bit of an exaggerated example, but you get the point, the playoffs being played in the bowls would be hugely more popular than games which don't mean a damn thing. MONEY is NOT the reason they don't have a playoff. I'm telling you, it's academia!

    On the question of "who is best" in any given year, a playoff system might settle that, but I can envision scenarios where people would still be dissatisfied with the outcome. Where a dominating undefeated #1 ranked team, who had been #1 all year, and had beaten some great teams along the way, annihilated their opponent in a conference championship game, and then get upset the first game of the playoff by a cinderella team... everybody would be saying THEY were "the best" but so-and-so won the trophy... it wouldn't settle the issue clearly. This very thing has happened before with the NFL and the Super Bowl. We can get into examples, but you shouldn't be so fucking hard headed and determined to disagree with me on everything, that you can't comprehend what I am saying here.
    NCAA basketball teams play 39 or 40 regular season games. They travel extensively and a large portion of the games are played on weekdays.

    Yes, the idea of Bama playing in 8 bowl games as a tourney sounds great. But how many teams do you think would fill stadiums 3 or 4 times in a single tournament? How many would fill stadiums for 8 games? A half a dozen big name schools might, but not many others would.

    And the thing about winning a championship is that a team has to win its games to be champions. If a team that some people think is the "best team" but they lose, then they fall out of the tourney. That is far superior to having what may be the best team, and never get a shot at playing for the top, not because of their own play, but because of a bias amoung those who vote and set it up.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
    NCAA basketball teams play 39 or 40 regular season games. They travel extensively and a large portion of the games are played on weekdays.
    Come on man, don't start getting ridiculous with this. Basketball is NOT Football! The team consists of a much smaller number of players, and the season is not running into final exams. There are about 50-gazillion other differences, so it's just not a comparable example to even mention or discuss. You simply want to grasp at anything to try and make your point, which has not yet been made.

    Yes, the idea of Bama playing in 8 bowl games as a tourney sounds great. But how many teams do you think would fill stadiums 3 or 4 times in a single tournament? How many would fill stadiums for 8 games? A half a dozen big name schools might, but not many others would.
    Well, Alabama would fill up a stadium every game if they played every night, but they are an exception to the rule. The point you are making here, is actually more of a detriment to your argument for a playoff system, how many fan bases would travel with their team to several venues through a playoff? I venture to say, not many could afford to do that. TV revenue would still be there, but the cities who host the bowls depend on people coming to town, booking hotel rooms, eating in restaurants, etc. Whatever 'system' you came up with, would have to take the current bowl organizations into account as well. I don't think you could do like Sochead says and just say "fuck the bowls!"

    And the thing about winning a championship is that a team has to win its games to be champions. If a team that some people think is the "best team" but they lose, then they fall out of the tourney. That is far superior to having what may be the best team, and never get a shot at playing for the top, not because of their own play, but because of a bias amoung those who vote and set it up.
    YES FUCKTARD I KNOW... YOU HAVE TO WIN GAMES TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS! NO FUCKING SHIT???? REALLY??? Try to get this through your impenetrable melon this time, because I am getting really fucking tired of repeating myself in different ways so that you MIGHT comprehend... I understand what you are saying, but regardless of what kind of playoff system you have, there will ALWAYS be the potential for controversy and complaint! Do you fucking understand what those words mean? Do I need to break that down into any more simpler terminology for your retarded ass? Even the most fair and impartial method of determining who plays for the title, is subject to someone, somewhere, having a different opinion about it! There would STILL BE disagreement on who was best! Well...yeah, this team won the title game, but that team had the best regular season record... or they lost on a bad call... or their QB got hurt... or..or..or... People would STILL maintain that whoever the ultimate winner of the Championship was, they didn't really deserve it because of whatever.... it's the nature of fanatics and sports, really. NO system is ever going to settle that problem, it's just the way things are! Did Peyton Manning and the Colts win the Super Bowl last year? Are there people (experts even) who believe they had the best team? If you still aren't getting what I am saying, just move on and forget what I am saying, because you're really starting to piss me off acting like a retard about this.

  7. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Yes, the idea of Bama playing in 8 bowl games as a tourney sounds great.
    No it doesn't sound great to me! It sounds like sheer stupidity and ridiculousness. A 12-game season, a Conference Championship Game, and 8 playoff games? Are you fucking insane or something? Hell, why not just play a non-stop game until all players are dead? Makes about as much sense to me!

    I think, what would have to happen is, an alignment of all major BCS schools into some conference, and a melding of conferences down to 8. From there, you have 4 games between 8 Conference champs, 2 semi-final games, and then a championship. This would add 3 extra games onto the end of the season at most. They could cut one or two games from the regular season, and maybe move it back a bit, play an earlier 'exhibition' type game or something, and maybe you could satisfy academia enough to go along with it. But it's like I said originally, the people who have the ultimate say in this, are the university boards who are full of people interested in education, not football. Until you find a way to keep them happy, you won't see a playoff system of any kind.

  8. #8 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Come on man, don't start getting ridiculous with this. Basketball is NOT Football! The team consists of a much smaller number of players, and the season is not running into final exams. There are about 50-gazillion other differences, so it's just not a comparable example to even mention or discuss. You simply want to grasp at anything to try and make your point, which has not yet been made. .
    I am not grasping at straws. In the OP you tried to make the point that it was the academics that was preventing a playoff. Too much time, too many games ect ect ect. Regardless of whether there are more or fewer people on each team, the fact that the NCAA basketball teams play 39 to 40 games, many on weeknights, shoots that particular theory down. I was not comparing sports, I was comparing game schedules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    Well, Alabama would fill up a stadium every game if they played every night, but they are an exception to the rule. The point you are making here, is actually more of a detriment to your argument for a playoff system, how many fan bases would travel with their team to several venues through a playoff? I venture to say, not many could afford to do that. TV revenue would still be there, but the cities who host the bowls depend on people coming to town, booking hotel rooms, eating in restaurants, etc. Whatever 'system' you came up with, would have to take the current bowl organizations into account as well. I don't think you could do like Sochead says and just say "fuck the bowls!" .
    It is not a detriment to my argument at all. Perhaps if you listened to my argument, I would not have to make it repeatedly.

    The reason for the opposition to the playoffs is money. Of course there wouldn't be as many people travelling to the games. That means there would not be as much money spent on these games.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    YES FUCKTARD I KNOW... YOU HAVE TO WIN GAMES TO WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS! NO FUCKING SHIT???? REALLY??? Try to get this through your impenetrable melon this time, because I am getting really fucking tired of repeating myself in different ways so that you MIGHT comprehend... I understand what you are saying, but regardless of what kind of playoff system you have, there will ALWAYS be the potential for controversy and complaint! Do you fucking understand what those words mean? Do I need to break that down into any more simpler terminology for your retarded ass? Even the most fair and impartial method of determining who plays for the title, is subject to someone, somewhere, having a different opinion about it! There would STILL BE disagreement on who was best! Well...yeah, this team won the title game, but that team had the best regular season record... or they lost on a bad call... or their QB got hurt... or..or..or... People would STILL maintain that whoever the ultimate winner of the Championship was, they didn't really deserve it because of whatever.... it's the nature of fanatics and sports, really. NO system is ever going to settle that problem, it's just the way things are! Did Peyton Manning and the Colts win the Super Bowl last year? Are there people (experts even) who believe they had the best team? If you still aren't getting what I am saying, just move on and forget what I am saying, because you're really starting to piss me off acting like a retard about this.
    You are trying to keep 119 teams in an unfair system because someone MIGHT whine that they had the best team, even though they lost in the tournament??? Why in the hell should I take that seriously? Its pure bullshit.

    You somehow think that is a bigger issue than, as we did in 2004, having 5 undefeated teams and only two getting to play for the championship? Even if you exclude Boise St and Utah for their weaker schedule, Auburn had a legitimate claim. The people you are talking about have no legitimate claim. They are just whining. If we have an 8 game tournament, then the team ranked #9 will whine. But they are just whining about bullshit. Unlike the teams who should have been given a shot.

  9. #9 | Top
    WinterBorn Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
    But it's like I said originally, the people who have the ultimate say in this, are the university boards who are full of people interested in education, not football. Until you find a way to keep them happy, you won't see a playoff system of any kind.
    The academics allow more games in other sports. They allow the sport to interfere with academics more than the football schedule does. It is simply not the academic people who are standing in the way.

  10. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
    I am not grasping at straws. In the OP you tried to make the point that it was the academics that was preventing a playoff. Too much time, too many games ect ect ect. Regardless of whether there are more or fewer people on each team, the fact that the NCAA basketball teams play 39 to 40 games, many on weeknights, shoots that particular theory down. I was not comparing sports, I was comparing game schedules.
    Well, it's actually NOT a theory, but a FACT! I happen to know people who sit on the board of directors at the University of Alabama, as well as the University of Alabama Birmingham, and this comes directly from them. So, you can believe whatever you like, I was just trying to educate you a little on the "problem" with why there isn't a playoff. It's because of the academics, the people in charge of what the sports teams can and can't do, are the people who run the fucking university, not the fans, not the coaches, not the sportswriters, not the bowl officials! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with money or the people involved in the athletic programs.

    It is not a detriment to my argument at all. Perhaps if you listened to my argument, I would not have to make it repeatedly.
    I've listened to your argument, it's a simple-minded opinionated load of crap, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You seem to be mindlessly repeating what you've heard on some jock show!

    The reason for the opposition to the playoffs is money. Of course there wouldn't be as many people travelling to the games. That means there would not be as much money spent on these games.
    Again, you are just plain flat out fucking WRONG about that. An extended season with a payoff bracket, would generate FAR MORE money for the universities. This is NOT ABOUT MONEY!

    You are trying to keep 119 teams in an unfair system because someone MIGHT whine that they had the best team, even though they lost in the tournament??? Why in the hell should I take that seriously? Its pure bullshit.
    I'm not trying to keep anything! I would LOVE to see a playoff system! I merely tried to point out why there isn't one, and what the problem is. You keep wanting to reject that, and be a little bitch. I don't give two shits what you take seriously, you fucking goofball, you're a goddamn liberal! All I did, was point out, that no matter what "system" you implement, the question of "who is best" will still not be definitively answered in all cases to all people... it just wouldn't happen in the real world, it doesn't happen now, in the systems already in place. There's nothing there to have to understand other than reality, if you can pull your pinhead out of your liberal ass and try to comprehend it. I haven't said it would be pointless to have a playoff, or that I wouldn't LOVE to see one!

    You somehow think that is a bigger issue than, as we did in 2004, having 5 undefeated teams and only two getting to play for the championship? Even if you exclude Boise St and Utah for their weaker schedule, Auburn had a legitimate claim. The people you are talking about have no legitimate claim. They are just whining. If we have an 8 game tournament, then the team ranked #9 will whine. But they are just whining about bullshit. Unlike the teams who should have been given a shot.
    I hate to break this to ya, but an 8-game tournament would be 16 teams, not 8! Do you mean a 4-game tournament? If so, please read my previous post again, because that was exactly what I suggested. But before that could happen, there would have to be some other things happen as well, including appeasing the academia who run the universities. THAT is the main problem facing ANY idea for a playoff system, the other problem is the bowl affiliations. You aren't going to just abandon the bowls.

  11. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinterBorn View Post
    The academics allow more games in other sports. They allow the sport to interfere with academics more than the football schedule does. It is simply not the academic people who are standing in the way.
    Now you're sounding like that idiot Apple and health care! Other sports do not interfere with academics, if they did, they wouldn't be allowed to by the people who determine the standards for the universities. I didn't say they were "standing in the way" did I? I said they wouldn't allow an extension of the season because it interferes with academics, final exams and whatnot. You want to shorten the season to 6 games, and then have a playoff? They would probably be FINE with that, but fans would raise t-total hell about giving up some of their favorite rivalries. I just don't think something like that could work. It's not academia "standing in the way" as much as it's academia who decides, and doesn't really give a shit about what a football fan wants to do!

  12. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Convington, La
    Posts
    22,763
    Thanks
    2,261
    Thanked 543 Times in 432 Posts
    Groans
    1,642
    Groaned 623 Times in 562 Posts

    Default

    silly pinhead cousin marrier Dixie that was cute.
    It's money, and nothing esle. The big conferences and bowls control a ton of it and are not giving it up. PERIOD
    The stone that the builder refused
    Will always be the head corner stone

  13. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Topspin View Post
    silly pinhead cousin marrier Dixie that was cute.
    It's money, and nothing esle. The big conferences and bowls control a ton of it and are not giving it up. PERIOD
    Yea that's pretty much the case. The Big 10 and Pac 10 had a strangle hold on the most profitable Bowl game for years. Now they don't have a strangle hold on it but they do dominate it. It's presently all about the money the big bowls make. The big conferences don't want to give them up or abandon dem wat brungum to da dance. There's no argument against a playoff, other then this, that carries water. If the FCS (formerly div IAA) can have a tournament, the so can the BCS Division Conferences.

    I think a playoff system is not only possible but probable. The money that can be generated is just to irresistible but here's the problem. The communities and organizations who developed these major bowl games into what they are have put a lot of time, effort, money and sweat into making them what they are today. Abandoning them for the greener pastures of a playoff, to state the obvious, doesn't sit well with them and that's why we don't have a tournament. So any playoff is going to have to be a compromise that keeps the Big Bowls in the picture.

    Here's what I would suggest. Let's have a 16 team tournament. To do that we limit the regular season schedule to 11 games. That means most of the Big BCS conferences will have to give up one game against a FCS team. No big whoop.

    Their are 11 conferences in the BCS Division and 3 independents. This format pretty much would force those independents to join a conference. Since they are Army, Nave and ND, the Big East would be a good fit for them.

    Each conference champion would earn an automatic bid to the tournament. That would leave 5 at large bids. Those at large bids will usually go to the power conferences. So no conferences are left out as in the current set up.

    The 16 teams that qualify or are selected would then be seeded according to the polls. Why? Cause the first round of the tournament will be played on the home field of the top 8 rated teams. The #1 team would play the #16 team, the #2 team the #15 team, etc. This would be played on the 2nd or 3rd weekend of Dec.

    After the first round we would then switch to the Bowl format. The quarterfinals would consist of the Citrus, Cotton, Gator and Fiesta Bowl. These would be played on the traditional New Years weekend.

    The Semi-finals would be the next weekend and that would consist of the Sugar and Orange Bowl.

    The next week would be an off week and the NCG would be played at the Rose Bowl the weekend before the Super Bowl.

    Now those dates are just a suggestion but you get the idea of the format. The beauty of this is that you can have your tournament and your bowl games. The smaller bowl games would still be available to reward teams that had a good season but didn't make the National Championship tournament. The seeding for the first round and the at large bids favors the power conferences, the non-power conferences get to participate and the traditional big Bowl games will still be played.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  14. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Convington, La
    Posts
    22,763
    Thanks
    2,261
    Thanked 543 Times in 432 Posts
    Groans
    1,642
    Groaned 623 Times in 562 Posts

    Default

    to me 16 is way too many, I say 8
    the beauty of college is the regular season means so much, I'm not interested in what 3 loss team can get hot in Jan and win it all. Not sure 8 isn't too many
    The stone that the builder refused
    Will always be the head corner stone

  15. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    24,050
    Thanks
    765
    Thanked 1,120 Times in 940 Posts
    Groans
    818
    Groaned 1,063 Times in 960 Posts

    Default

    LMAO... Okay, if Mott can figure out and formulate a way that a playoff system could work, and this idea is shared by Topspin and WinterBorn, and a variety of other people out there, including myself... why hasn't such a system been implemented? It's easy to say it's about the money, but I fail to see where a playoff system such as you've outlined, wouldn't generate MILLIONS in TV revenues alone! What you're saying isn't making sense... you are adding an 8-game playoff...15 total extra games, each generating millions of dollars in revenue... yet the reason they don't do this is the money?

    No boys, the reason is not the money. In fact, money might ultimately be the reason they eventually adopt a playoff system. As of now, the reason is academia. University boards of directors, are reluctant to allow an extension of the season into late January, where it would interfere with final exams, and require student-athletes to be away from the school for over a month, as they travel around playing the playoffs. You hard heads can insist you are right and I am wrong on this, I don't really give a shit, I know that is the truth of the matter, and if you don't want to believe it, that's your business. But you've certainly not made any case for how it's about the money.

Similar Threads

  1. College Football
    By DamnYankee in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 06:10 PM
  2. 4 weeks until NCAA Football begins!
    By WinterBorn in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 09-27-2009, 12:08 AM
  3. College Football?
    By Cancel3 in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-17-2008, 02:04 AM
  4. all u college football freaks
    By Chapdog in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 10-26-2007, 09:11 AM
  5. Dixie's Preseason Top 10- NCAA Football
    By Dixie - In Memoriam in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 03:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •