NCAA Football Buzzkill

[Fighter of Foo]

This (http://www.salon.com/sports/col/kaufman/2007/09/04/tuesday/print.html)sums up my feelings exactly...

"I wish I'd been at Saturday's stunner, wish I'd even seen it. But I don't think it argues against my point, which is that college football, as a sport to follow, is a joke. The upper echelon of teams, the top 40 or so that have a ghost's chance at ever winning a championship, almost never play each other except when their conference affiliation or a bowl matchup forces them to."

It goes on...

"But one stunning upset does not a healthy sport make. The very thought that Michigan's loss was so unthinkable, which is what makes Appalachian State's victory so phantasmagorical, is also a clue that something's very wrong. There shouldn't be any games in which a win by one team is all but unthinkable. There are a half-dozen such games a week just in the top 25....The game experience in college football is unbeatable. That's why it's so frustrating that as a sport, it's such a mess, rife with colossal mismatches and a pathetic excuse of a championship system, not to mention the leaning tower of corruption that forms the sport's foundation. The only other sport that can be described in those terms is boxing. Nice company college football's keeping there."

Anyone disagree?

[rkmsuf]

I just don't like college football because the product is so inferior to that of the NFL. The play itself is terrible.


I guess if you go to those schools it's exciting but beyond that you can have. I always kind of looked at older alumni fantatics as kooks. I mean you went to X University 15 years ago. Get over it.

/end old bastard diatribe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, I'd pretty much disagree across the board.

It's far from flawless, it's still more entertaining & more interesting than most other sports. So sayeth someone who watched most of TT-SMU yesterday.

I see teams in that "Top 40" playing each other virtually every week of the season, it's called conference play.

[JPhillips]

Let's look at Ohio State.

They play 12 games, but only four are out of conference. Out of those four they play Washington, but that's as close as they get to a big game. The other three, though, are against Ohio teams which increases their visibility and gives them a sizable payment. There's a good argument that big public schools have duty to play in state teams.

Out of the other eight conference games they play Purdue, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Michigan. All five of those teams could be in the Top Twenty by year's end.

Also, how do you define the top teams? Are they the ones at the top of the polls in August? If so, do you schedule all non-conference games in between the top ranked schools and screw everyone else?

There are problems with college football, especially a general corruption in how athletes are signed and retained, but scheduling really isn't a big issue.

[vex]

Yeah, I'd pretty much disagree across the board.



Same here.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yeah, I'd pretty much disagree across the board.

It's far from flawless, it's still more entertaining & more interesting than most other sports. So sayeth someone who watched most of TT-SMU yesterday.

I see teams in that "Top 40" playing each other virtually every week of the season, it's called conference play.

I agree.

As for the college product being "inferior" and "the play itself being terrible", I just don't get that. Maybe it's because I am a Lions' fan, so my view of the quality of NFL football is probably quite skewed, but I really don't think the quality is that significantly different.

Certainly the players are not as big, fast, and strong on average as your typical NFL team, but I think the quality of play is quite strong overall. It's not like, say, the different in quality between college hockey and the NHL.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I guess if you go to those schools it's exciting but beyond that you can have. I always kind of looked at older alumni fantatics as kooks. I mean you went to X University 15 years ago. Get over it.

/end old bastard diatribe.

I don't know about this second point either. Sure, some fans are kooks, but I think it's more logical to understand why a 37 year old would be a huge fan of his/her college team, than it is to understand why the same person would be a huge fan of a professional team.

At least their connection to their college team has something more than just growing up in a certain area or liking the way a team's uniform looks or however folks pick their favorite professional team.

[rkmsuf]

I agree.

As for the college product being "inferior" and "the play itself being terrible", I just don't get that. Maybe it's because I am a Lions' fan, so my view of the quality of NFL football is probably quite skewed, but I really don't think the quality is that significantly different.

Certainly the players are not as big, fast, and strong on average as your typical NFL team, but I think the quality of play is quite strong overall. It's not like, say, the different in quality between college hockey and the NHL.

To me it's a huge dropoff. Maybe it's a northeast thing. Everyone else seems to love it.

[Logan]

Pretty much agree with Jon in my complete disagreement.

"But one stunning upset does not a healthy sport make. The very thought that Michigan's loss was so unthinkable, which is what makes Appalachian State's victory so phantasmagorical, is also a clue that something's very wrong. There shouldn't be any games in which a win by one team is all but unthinkable. There are a half-dozen such games a week just in the top 25...."

No, there are half-dozen such games THIS week, and maybe for the next two weeks, just in the top 25. In mid November, there's no such games. There are big upsets in those weeks, but nothing as crazy as what we saw on Saturday.

There are 119 I-A programs. You can't have parity with that number, it's impossible. Especially when a major piece of the puzzle is the amount of money you can spend on developing the program.

This guy's problem is with college sports in general. If Florida's basketball team lost to Jackson State to open the season, in Florida, it would be an even bigger shock, IMO, than Mich-App St.

[twothree]

There shouldn't be any games in which a win by one team is all but unthinkable.

??? Someone checked out of reality for a sentence. ???

Parity does not, will not, and can not exist in college football. Different college football budgets, different enrollment sizes, different quality of players, and other differences keep the have and the have nots well separated.

Watch the NFL for parity. "Any Given Sunday" ...not Saturday.

[rkmsuf]

I don't know about this second point either. Sure, some fans are kooks, but I think it's more logical to understand why a 37 year old would be a huge fan of his/her college team, than it is to understand why the same person would be a huge fan of a professional team.

At least their connection to their college team has something more than just growing up in a certain area or liking the way a team's uniform looks or however folks pick their favorite professional team.


I don't know. I just picture these people "reliving" their college days which I guess is fine.

Again, growing up in the northeast it's always been pro sports. If I grew up in another area maybe I'd have a go gators bumper sticker or something.

[Logan]

Watch the NFL for parity. "Any Given Sunday" ...not Saturday.

The funny thing is people love to kill the NFL for its parity. "We need dynasties!!!" (Hello USC, Florida, Michigan, etc)

[Huckleberry]

I don't know. I just picture these people "reliving" their college days which I guess is fine.

Who's "reliving" anything? I was in college once. Won't be there again, at least as an undergrad. It doesn't mean I pretend to be a college student when I watch the games. I watched the season opener this weekend with my wife on my birthday and paused it at one point to put my two daughters to bed. Yep, I was reliving the college years.

:confused:

[rkmsuf]

Who's "reliving" anything? I was in college once. Won't be there again, at least as an undergrad. It doesn't mean I pretend to be a college student when I watch the games. I watched the season opener this weekend with my wife on my birthday and paused it at one point to put my two daughters to bed. Yep, I was reliving the college years.

:confused:

Who's singling you out?

Major thumbs up though for pausing the game.

[DaddyTorgo]

To me it's a huge dropoff. Maybe it's a northeast thing. Everyone else seems to love it.

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather...

Like Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the rest of those tropical states...

[George]

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

I grew up and currently live in New England. I watched very little college football when I was younger. I attended grad school in SEC country, and that changed everything. College football became my favorite sport, and it remains so to this day.

[lordscarlet]

??? Someone checked out of reality for a sentence. ???

Parity does not, will not, and can not exist in college football. Different college football budgets, different enrollment sizes, different quality of players, and other differences keep the have and the have nots well separated.

Watch the NFL for parity. "Any Given Sunday" ...not Saturday.

I don't think the point here is for parity. The point they are trying to make is that team #1 should not be playing team #119. They believe top tier teams should only play top tier teams.

[timmynausea]

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

UConn has won two national championships in the past 9 or 10 years in basketball, and the Big East is one of best basketball conferences, if not the best.

I'd say traditionally Penn State was the Eastern football power, but their association with the Big Ten kind of changed things.

[BrianD]

I don't think the point here is for parity. The point they are trying to make is that team #1 should not be playing team #119. They believe top tier teams should only play top tier teams.

Or at least they should sometimes play top tier teams. We often hear about good small conference teams that can't get games with big opponents since playing these games can only hurt the big teams. The bid for a national championship comes down to going undefeated (or maybe one loss). The big teams play enough other big teams in conference that they can afford to play bad teams out of conference. The good smaller teams play a weaker conference and then can't get a big team to play them. This sort of perpetuates the difference between the top few teams and the rest.

The point about a bid drop off in the quality of football is valid, but I don't think it is a bad thing. Pro players are so specialized that they become less interesting. College players tend to be less specialized (on balance) and have more flexibility to them. Not every team has to look the same or play with the same strategy. And the pure joy you see in most college athletes will always make up for any deficiency in talent compared to the pros.

[rkmsuf]

The point about a bid drop off in the quality of football is valid, but I don't think it is a bad thing. Pro players are so specialized that they become less interesting. College players tend to be less specialized (on balance) and have more flexibility to them. Not every team has to look the same or play with the same strategy. And the pure joy you see in most college athletes will always make up for any deficiency in talent compared to the pros.

that's a fair point

the joy part shines in the big upsets. that's a good thing. overall it doesn't move me in terms of the big 1A programs. they are just pro athletes in disguise sans the talent yet.

[Warhammer]

While college football is a great sport, I think there are many who have their head in the sand regarding the game and do not want change, for the sake of not having change.

It is telling when the culmination of the season resolves very little. Much of the season comes down to a popularity contest, or a debate over which win was more "impressive". Worthy teams are left out of the national championship debate. Other teams are penalized for improvement during the season.

Fans of the system will talk about the whole season being a big playoff. Tell that to the undefeated Auburn Tigers or Utah Utes of a few years ago. The only way that the system ever works is at the end of the season there is only one undefeated team in the land. Anything else, and there will be debate. What about the Michigan team last year? How do they not get another shot at Ohio State, but Florida gets a shot? With every team having one loss, how is one loss any better or any worse than another?

Let's assume that Michigan goes out and runs the table the rest of the year. Every other team has lost one game, does Ohio State or Michigan get the slot in the title game? Ohio State lost to Michigan, but Michigan lost to a 1-AA school. The fact that a debate needs to occur prior to a title game taking place is ridiculous.

Every other major sport has a playoff. The rules are well defined, you do X, you get in. Get into the playoffs, then win your games and you will get to the title game. Win that you are champions. It doesn't matter if you have lost 2, 3, or 4 games, as long as you make the playoffs and win.

The argument has been made that a playoff will dilute the regular season. I strongly disagree. Imagine what would be at stake if a Michigan team that struggled early, but rolled through the Big 10 schedule rolls into Columbus against an undefeated OSU team. On the line, the single Big 10 birth into the college football 1-A playoff. Think the SEC Championship game is intense now, imagine if the winner took the only SEC slot in the playoff!

Imagine a game with arguably the greatest season having a playoff system to match.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Let's assume that Michigan goes out and runs the table the rest of the year. Every other team has lost one game, does Ohio State or Michigan get the slot in the title game? Ohio State lost to Michigan, but Michigan lost to a 1-AA school.

No.

While college football is a great sport, I think there are many who have their head in the sand regarding the game and do not want change, for the sake of not having change.

It is telling when the culmination of the season resolves very little. Much of the season comes down to a popularity contest, or a debate over which win was more "impressive". Worthy teams are left out of the national championship debate. Other teams are penalized for improvement during the season.

Fans of the system will talk about the whole season being a big playoff. Tell that to the undefeated Auburn Tigers or Utah Utes of a few years ago. The only way that the system ever works is at the end of the season there is only one undefeated team in the land. Anything else, and there will be debate. What about the Michigan team last year? How do they not get another shot at Ohio State, but Florida gets a shot? With every team having one loss, how is one loss any better or any worse than another?

Every other major sport has a playoff. The rules are well defined, you do X, you get in. Get into the playoffs, then win your games and you will get to the title game. Win that you are champions. It doesn't matter if you have lost 2, 3, or 4 games, as long as you make the playoffs and win.

The argument has been made that a playoff will dilute the regular season. I strongly disagree. Imagine what would be at stake if a Michigan team that struggled early, but rolled through the Big 10 schedule rolls into Columbus against an undefeated OSU team. On the line, the single Big 10 birth into the college football 1-A playoff. Think the SEC Championship game is intense now, imagine if the winner took the only SEC slot in the playoff!

Imagine a game with arguably the greatest season having a playoff system to match.

No need to go too far down this well-travelled road, but pretty much every playoff system that I have seen suggested would also include similar arguments or debate about which teams should get into the playoffs and which teams should not.

Even in college basketball, where you have a 64+ team field, there's a debate about "bubble" teams. The debate is often very similar to that in college football about "impressive" wins and the like.

Considering any realistic college football playoff would probably include something like 8 teams, the debate would be much more intense. So, while having a playoff would likely no longer make it possible for an undefeated team to not at least have a shot at a national title, you would still have the debate, popularity contest, and arguments that you don't find in professional sports.

I have heard of no workable system for a college football playoff where "[t]he rules [would be] well defined, you do X, you get in."

[molson]

. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

I tried to broaden my horizons a little bit once I left New England to go to school at Syracuse, and I've been a casual follower of college football ever since.

It's not just the lower quality of play, but really the structure of the whole thing that ever kept me from getting into it more than that.

One thing I'll never really be able to understand or enjoy is the importance of college rivalies. I mean, Michigan St and Ohio St play each other every year -sometimes it matters in terms of conference/national championship, sometimes it doesn't. Yet everyone always acts like it matters every year no matter what. So Michigan wins one year - big deal, they'll play again next year, and the year after. I can see the difference if I'm a student or player (and want to go 4-0 against my rival while I'm there, or 3-1), but after that, I don't get it. Plus, as a non-fan, all those huge midwest and southern schools seemed interchangeable, so it was tough to get what everyone was getting so worked up about.

Pro (Northeast) rivalires are very different. They're made in the playoffs. The Celtics biggest rival was the Lakers - a team they only played twice in the regular season every year. Red Sox/Yankees didn't matter at all from 1978 until 1995, when they became a dominant 1-2 in the division, and division titles and more were decided when they played. Same with Bruins/Canadians, and today to some extent, Patriots/Colts.

As a Syracuse fan, it also got really tiring that unless they won the Big East, they'd be in the #5 bowl in the big east tie-ins. Even if they finished #2 and beat the 3rd, 4th, and 5th place teams during the season, they'd still end up in that same crappy bowl because they didn't "travel well". This rendered a lot of the games during the season meaningless. (Maybe short of a playoff system, we could at least fix that - make conference standings matter, and compel bowls to respect them).

[JPhillips]

Warhammer: Your system, though, has flaws of it's own. Why would it be fair to have only the conference champion in the playoffs? Shouldn't a one loss second place team get in over a two loss conference champion? And how do you compare winning the SEC to the Big East? How many conferences get automatic bids? Would the Mountain West get a bid? The MAC?

Football isn't like the other sports in that there are so few games. In a playoff scenario like you describe it still rewards teams that may not be the best. There's still going to be an argument about who got into the playoffs. That won't go away unless you open it up to sixteen teams or more, with almost all of them coming from the major conferences. That's a month of extra football for the final two teams.

I won't be upset by a switch to a playoff, but don't pretend that it will sovle all problems and make everything perfectly fair.

[Huckleberry]

Who's singling you out?

Major thumbs up though for pausing the game.

The point was that the vast majority of college football fans that are alumni of their rooting interest are in the same boat. I will try to elaborate more in the future.

[JPhillips]

How do you get eight teams out of this poll without any argument?

1. Ohio State (65) 12-0 1,625
2. Florida 12-1 1,529
3. Michigan 11-1 1,526
4. LSU 10-2 1,365
5. Louisville 11-1 1,333
6. Wisconsin 11-1 1,255
7. Oklahoma 11-2 1,232
8. USC 10-2 1,182
9. Boise State 12-0 1,097
10. Auburn 10-2 1,020
11. Notre Dame 10-2 939
12. Arkansas 10-3 867
13. West Virginia 10-2 865
14. Virginia Tech 10-2 798
15. Wake Forest 11-2 766
16. Rutgers 10-2 631
17. Tennessee 9-3 576
18. Texas 9-3 564
19. Brigham Young 10-2 436
20. California 9-3 390
21. Texas A&M 9-3 379
22. Nebraska 9-4 193
23. Boston College 9-3 179
24. Oregon State 9-4 112
25. TCU 10-2 80

[JonInMiddleGA]

big deal, they'll play again next year, and the year after.

If that's where you're coming from, I think further conversation may be moot.

I don't get it.

Truer words may never have been spoken.

And that's not meant to be a slam at you (or anyone who feels like you do),
I just don't believe it's going to be possible for anyone to explain if. Kind of like the pro wrestling quote that's made the rounds for years now, to the effect that "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who don't, no explanation will do."

I will say that it's often as much about as hate as about love. Those rivalries don't just matter because of the team you're aligned with, they matter moreso often because of the strong feelings you harbor toward the rival. When I say I'd pull for the Al-Qaida j.v. water polo team over UGA, I'm not kidding, thirty years ago I'd have pulled for the Soviets the same way. It's the doubling effect that the love & hate creates in the rivalries that contributes to making it so intense.

[molson]

How do you get eight teams out of this poll without any argument?



If the goal is not to have any arguments, than ya, it's a lost cause. But I don't think that's the goal. There's obviously arguments between the final at-large bids in the NCAA basketball tournament. But generally, the teams that are in the running to win it all don't have to sweat too much. The argument is, it's better to have those arguments at 14-16 then it is to have them at 2-4.

So it'd love to see it, if only because it'd be something different. But people who want a football playoff have to be willing to accept that we won't have the titanic 1 v. 2 matchups every year. I mean, would people accept a national championship game with teams with multiple regular season losses (looking at last year: Arkansas v. West Virginia, or Rutgers v. California - it could happen).

[Honolulu_Blue]

I tried to broaden my horizons a little bit once I left New England to go to school at Syracuse, and I've been a casual follower of college football ever since.

It's not just the lower quality of play, but really the structure of the whole thing that ever kept me from getting into it more than that.

One thing I'll never really be able to understand or enjoy is the importance of college rivalies. I mean, Michigan St and Ohio St play each other every year -sometimes it matters in terms of conference/national championship, sometimes it doesn't. Yet everyone always acts like it matters every year no matter what. So Michigan wins one year - big deal, they'll play again next year, and the year after. I can see the difference if I'm a student or player (and want to go 4-0 against my rival while I'm there, or 3-1), but after that, I don't get it. Plus, as a non-fan, all those huge midwest and southern schools seemed interchangeable, so it was tough to get what everyone was getting so worked up about.

Pro (Northeast) rivalires are very different. They're made in the playoffs. The Celtics biggest rival was the Lakers - a team they only played twice in the regular season every year. Red Sox/Yankees didn't matter at all from 1978 until 1995, when they became a dominant 1-2 in the division, and division titles and more were decided when they played. Same with Bruins/Canadians, and today to some extent, Patriots/Colts.

If anything college rivalries are much more natural than pro rivalries. Professional rivalries, for the most part, ebb and flow depending on whose on which team and if both teams are good. I don't think there's too much a difference between professional rivalries in the Northeast as compared to professional rivalries anywhere else in the states. Sure, the Bears and Packers are the Lions' biggest rivlaries, but no one cares really because they Lions are so bad. Back in the late 90's and early 00's, Detroit/Colorado (NHL) were an intense rivalry, probably the best in sports during that time, but it's totally different now.

College rivalries tend to last. A lot of college rivalries, most of them, are based on proximity. They mean state or local bragging rights. If the Lions lose to the Bears, I don't really hear much about it, but when Michigan loses to Michigan State, I get from co-workers, my brother, neighbors, you name it... Same goes for Michigan/Notre Dame and Michigan/Ohio State. It's certainly true for the host of other local/state rivalries that exist in college football. College rivalries are much more personal in that way. (SkyDog posted about this a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two ago, and summed it up nicely.)

Furthermore, the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry runs so deep, not only because of proximity, but because, for all intents and purposes, the Michigan/Ohio State was the playoff game for both teams. More often than not the winner of that game won the Big Ten and went to the Rose Bowl.

College rivalries are, for the most part, lasting, while professional rivalries, for the most part, are fleeting/temporary.

[molson]

And that's not meant to be a slam at you (or anyone who feels like you do),
I just don't believe it's going to be possible for anyone to explain if. Kind of like the pro wrestling quote that's made the rounds for years now, to the effect that "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who don't, no explanation will do."


Sure, and I'm not saying I'm right. In a way, I wish I got it, because so many others clearly do and enjoy it, but if you grow up in the northeast, you just have a mental block for it, I guess.

[TroyF]

I prefer the NFL to college for a lot of reasons. . . but I still watch more than my fair share of college football.

[Honolulu_Blue]

(SkyDog posted about this a few weeks, or perhaps a month or two ago, and summed it up nicely.)

Here's the quote I was thinking of:

I really don't think it's a question of ignoring or not caring; it's a question of level of care. I care deeply about the Falcons winning or losing, but I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY care about rubbing a win in the face of all these USC people I am around all the time now. Similarly, same thing with all the Auburnheads and Tech people back in the A-T-L.

Maybe it's as simple as that. Before Jax/Car/Ten came into the league in very recent years, the Falcons were the only team for the majority of the SEC folks. If the Falcons lost, you didn't have to go to work or school the next day and catch it. But if the Dawgs lost on Saturday, church was a miserable place on Sunday, and work or school was a miserable place on Monday. And if it was a loss to Auburn or Tech in particular, you had to LIVE with those mofos for an entire year. ;)

[RPI-Fan]

The point is at least you're arguing over the 8th, 9th best teams instead of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd teams. That is a HUGE improvement.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Sure, and I'm not saying I'm right. In a way, I wish I got it, because so many others clearly do and enjoy it, but if you grow up in the northeast, you just have a mental block for it, I guess.

That's simply not true. I know plenty of rabid college football fans who grew up in the northeast. That said, while these folks grew up in the northeast, most of them ended up attending a (non-northeast) college with a very good football program.

[molson]

Ya, Skydog's quote stuck me also as something I didn't get.

In a college rivalry, let's say one team has beaten the other 4 straight years, and is favored to win in year 5. The lesser rival pulls an upset, a highlight to an otherwise crappy year. The better rival, overall, has a solid season.

Does the rival that won that game (but is still clearly worse), get to brag about it all year to the losing rival's fans? 'Cause that would be kind of lame.

[molson]

That's simply not true. I know plenty of rabid college football fans who grew up in the northeast. That said, while these folks grew up in the northeast, most of them ended up attending a (non-northeast) college with a very good football program.

And Syracuse, while it had good sports programs, didn't really have a rival (late 90's). We got up for Miami in football, because they were the best. And in basketball Uconn, because they were the best. But there wasn't some random mediocre team that I was told to hate, even if the game had no bearing on anything. THAT would be what I wouldn't get.

I guess Syracuse considered Georgetown basketball a rival at one time, but again, that was only when both teams were fighting it out for big east dominance. When Georgetown was down in the late 90s, it didn't matter anymore.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Does the rival that won that game (but is still clearly worse), get to brag about it all year to the losing rival's fans?

Absolutely. Not only that, but you've ruined their season (which is a big part of what you're really reminding them of). It's a case of "we may suck, but we still beat you".

For a lot of schools with rivalries, I believe a coach could survive indefinitely winning just one game a year, as long as that win was against that particular team (only applies to schools with just one significant rival - a Florida or an FSU or a Tennessee with multiples would be a different matter).

[Honolulu_Blue]

And Syracuse, (where I went), while it had good sports programs, didn't really have a rival. We got up for Miami, because they were the best. And in basketball Uconn, because they were the best. There wasn't some random mediocre team that I was told to hate. THAT would be what I wouldn't get.

College rivalries aren't really all that random. You have the occassional outlier that has some historical signficance to it, but for the most part college rivalries are pretty straight forward and make perfect sense.

USC/UCLA, Texas/Oklahoma, Army/Navy, Texas/Texas A&M, Michigan/Michigan St., Oklahoma/Oklahoma St., Georgia/Georgia Tech, Florida/Miami, Florida/Florida St., etc, etc.

The pattern is pretty simple, no? Most rivalries are in-state rivalries or regional.

[lordscarlet]

Warhammer: Your system, though, has flaws of it's own. Why would it be fair to have only the conference champion in the playoffs? Shouldn't a one loss second place team get in over a two loss conference champion? And how do you compare winning the SEC to the Big East? How many conferences get automatic bids? Would the Mountain West get a bid? The MAC?

Football isn't like the other sports in that there are so few games. In a playoff scenario like you describe it still rewards teams that may not be the best. There's still going to be an argument about who got into the playoffs. That won't go away unless you open it up to sixteen teams or more, with almost all of them coming from the major conferences. That's a month of extra football for the final two teams.

I won't be upset by a switch to a playoff, but don't pretend that it will sovle all problems and make everything perfectly fair.

Unless you get rid of all the extra games that have been added over the past 10-15 years, particularly the early cupcake ones.

[Passacaglia]

Does the rival that won that game (but is still clearly worse), get to brag about it all year to the losing rival's fans? 'Cause that would be kind of lame.

Hell. Yes. That's what makes it a rivalry -- it's an important game that players and fans get up for, even if the game doesn't mean anything in the conference or national picture. It's like playing in a fantasy football league, and paying more attention when you play your best friend's team than you would against anyone else.

[molson]

The pattern is pretty simple, no? Most rivalries are in-state rivalries or regional.

Sure, and if don't have a "dog if the fight" in one of those rivalries, or are even from the area, teams involved in those rivalries seem interchangeable to an outsider.

Like Oklahoma/Oklahoma St - I'm sure if you know anything about those schools or areas, you know all sorts of fun stereotypes that distinguish them, which adds to the spice of a rivalry. But for an outsider, they appear to be exactly the same, save for two letters.

And if you're not from an area with any rabid college football rivalries, THEY ALL seem like that at first, though I've learned a lot in the last 20 years.

[Warhammer]

My system is simple. Take the 11 conference champions, which are selected on best conference record and put them in in a bracket. There would need to be two play-in games which would be determined before the start of the season. Actually, the entire field would be determined randomly before the start of the season and the games would be played at the site of the team with the better overall record. Sites for teams with equivalent records would be determined by a coin flip.

The whole process would take 4 weeks to play out. It would eliminate bias and reward teams that win their conference. If a team is the best in the land, they will win their games. Does this provide for a team to stumble early and still win all the marbles? Yes. Does it provide a benefit to winning your conference? Yes.

The gripe I see many people having is that the conferences are treated equal. The way I see it, aside from the Sunbelt Conference, each conference champion can have a legitimate chance to win the title. Utah, Tulane, Houston, Southern Miss, Air Force, BYU, etc., have all had big time success in NCAA 1-A football. There is no reason why they couldn't win it all if the stars aligned.

A by-product of this system is that it forces the Indepdents to join a conference. If another conference is added, it actually makes things a little easier as you would have four play in games. If a team is actually the best team in the country, playing one extra game should not make a difference. Perhaps you would get a Florida playing a Troy State in the final, but Troy would have had to win at least two games to get there. Heck, I wouldn't moan too much if they seeded the playoff (not fond of that idea as it perpetuates conference predjudices).

Are quality teams going to be left out? Sure. What happens if Florida is the best team in the country and Tennessee is the next best? They should have taken care of business in the conference. What if the best team slips up in a conference title game? The same thing happens in the current system. Losing a single game is even more punishing under the current system, as a 1 loss team has no shot at a national title if there are two undefeated teams.

Finally, the best thing about my system is it gets the game out of the polls. It is completely out of their hands. The teams know what they have to do at the start of the season to get into the playoff system. Win their conference. After they get in the dance, just win your games and you are the champion. That puts the power in the hands of the players, not in the hands of the pollsters and media outlets.

[molson]

Hell. Yes. That's what makes it a rivalry -- it's an important game that players and fans get up for, even if the game doesn't mean anything in the conference or national picture. It's like playing in a fantasy football league, and paying more attention when you play your best friend's team than you would against anyone else.

Interesting. Where if in 2003, I gave a Yankees fan shit because my Red Sox swept them in a regular season series, I'd definitely be considered a douche. (And they'd chant "1918")

[Fighter of Foo]

I see teams in that "Top 40" playing each other virtually every week of the season, it's called conference play.

"The upper echelon of teams, the top 40 or so that have a ghost's chance at ever winning a championship, almost never play each other except when their conference affiliation or a bowl matchup forces them to."

Originally Posted by Warhammer http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1538220#post1538220)
Let's assume that Michigan goes out and runs the table the rest of the year. Every other team has lost one game, does Ohio State or Michigan get the slot in the title game? Ohio State lost to Michigan, but Michigan lost to a 1-AA school.

No????????

Well that's retarded. What if, as may be the case, App. St. is very, very good? Michigan's season is over thanks to one loss?

The whole idea of losing early in the year as opposed to late has morphed into schedule a bunch of weaker teams, at home so both teams get paid with little to lose. Smaller school gets a paycheck, bigger school gets game revenue, plus a win. A legitimate top team can play 8 home games, of which maybe one or two they are not a significant favorite. Add in two or three difficult games on the road or at a neutral site, and you've got a 5 game season, assuming no f*** ups. And some years you're allowed one.
As far as I can see, college football games exist in a vaccuum much moreso than before, and have close to no value to a neutral supporter whatsoever.

I understand why people care about their respective teams/rivals. I don't understand why anyone else still does.

[Warhammer]

Unless you get rid of all the extra games that have been added over the past 10-15 years, particularly the early cupcake ones.

In my system, you would throw out the cupcake games because they are not part of the conference schedule. There would be some incentive to play tough games to get the team ready for big time opponents. The only time that overall records would come into play would be for home field advantage in the play-in games.

Now my system would not necessarily get #1 vs. #2 on the field. What it does is it puts all the conference champions (which would have to either be undefeated, or beaten an otherwise undefeated team) in a playoff pool. This is completely unbiased. Am I making the claim that the Sunbelt is as good as the SEC? No. But their division champ, should have the same chance to win the title.

Currently, there is no way a Sunbelt champion would have a shot at the title. Their SOS would not be strong enough, and since most schedules are set up 4-5 years out, there is no way to up your SOS when you think you have a team that has a shot to win it all. And, the teams that you would want to play to have that shot, have no incentive to play you. This system gets rid of that crap. If Troy State can play with the big boys, they will get their chance, if they can beat their peers.

[Huckleberry]

Ya, Skydog's quote stuck me also as something I didn't get.

In a college rivalry, let's say one team has beaten the other 4 straight years, and is favored to win in year 5. The lesser rival pulls an upset, a highlight to an otherwise crappy year. The better rival, overall, has a solid season.

Does the rival that won that game (but is still clearly worse), get to brag about it all year to the losing rival's fans? 'Cause that would be kind of lame.

I wish you would tell all the Texas A&M alumni around here about this. :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

"The upper echelon of teams, the top 40 or so that have a ghost's chance at ever winning a championship, almost never play each other except when their conference affiliation or a bowl matchup forces them to."

Originally Posted by Warhammer http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1538220#post1538220)
Let's assume that Michigan goes out and runs the table the rest of the year. Every other team has lost one game, does Ohio State or Michigan get the slot in the title game? Ohio State lost to Michigan, but Michigan lost to a 1-AA school.

No????????

Well that's retarded. What if, as may be the case, App. St. is very, very good? Michigan's season is over thanks to one loss?

The whole idea of losing early in the year as opposed to late has morphed into schedule a bunch of weaker teams, at home so both teams get paid with little to lose. Smaller school gets a paycheck, bigger school gets game revenue, plus a win. A legitimate top team can play 8 home games, of which maybe one or two they are not a significant favorite. Add in two or three difficult games on the road or at a neutral site, and you've got a 5 game season, assuming no f*** ups. And some years you're allowed one.
As far as I can see, college football games exist in a vaccuum much moreso than before, and have close to no value to a neutral supporter whatsoever.

I understand why people care about their respective teams/rivals. I don't understand why anyone else still does.

Hrmm... I am still not following this argument at all.

Why exactly shouldn't I be excited/interested in watching the Virginia Tech/LSU game this weekend?

[Warhammer]

No????????

Well that's retarded. What if, as may be the case, App. St. is very, very good? Michigan's season is over thanks to one loss?

That's half the problem. I would not be surprised to see Michigan drop out of the Top 25. Probably won't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me. That is the problem though. Their whole season is now over because of one blocked FG. They win that game, no matter how ugly, they'd still have a title shot. Now, they have effectively no chance to make the title game. They could even have the best team in the country, but no matter what else they do on the field, it will not matter.

The whole idea of losing early in the year as opposed to late has morphed into schedule a bunch of weaker teams, at home so both teams get paid with little to lose. Smaller school gets a paycheck, bigger school gets game revenue, plus a win. A legitimate top team can play 8 home games, of which maybe one or two they are not a significant favorite. Add in two or three difficult games on the road or at a neutral site, and you've got a 5 game season, assuming no f*** ups. And some years you're allowed one.
As far as I can see, college football games exist in a vaccuum much moreso than before, and have close to no value to a neutral supporter whatsoever.

I understand why people care about their respective teams/rivals. I don't understand why anyone else still does.

That is exactly the way I see it. I still watch the NFL religiously. I don't care who is on, I watch it. NCAA football, which I used to do the same thing with, I don't watch so much any more. I hate all the politics. I love Notre Dame, but it hacks me off that they do not join a conference. I hate how the SEC schools basically don't give a damn about educating their players (yes, I realize it happens everywhere, but it is worse in the SEC), but dang it, if the boy can play, suit him up and make sure you pay the local DA well and hope he's a grad of your school.

The power schools try harder and harder to maintain their grip on power, and give just enough to keep the smaller schools happy. All this crap with the politics of the BCS and polls and everything else drives me nuts. I've started to tune it out.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That's half the problem. I would not be surprised to see Michigan drop out of the Top 25. Probably won't happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.

They did.

Their whole season is now over because of one blocked FG. They win that game, no matter how ugly, they'd still have a title shot. Now, they have effectively no chance to make the title game.

While their national title dreams are over, the season isn't over. Michigan's seniors have plenty to play for. They have never beaten Ohio State and they have never won a bowl game. Also, their national title dreams aren't over because of one blocked FG. Their national title dreams are over because they lost to a Division I-AA team, an apparently damn good Division I-AA team, but a I-AA team nonetheless. At home.

They could even have the best team in the country, but no matter what else they do on the field, it will not matter.

They don't. Losing to a Division I-AA team pretty much proved that. While the game came down to the last play, Appalachain St. were the better team that game.

I reckon this hypothetical will again be proven false, perhaps as early as next week. Oregon runs the spread offense. Apparently Michigan is incapable of defending against such an offense.

[cthomer5000]

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

I think in the Northeast, particularly the NYC metro area, it's WAY more a competition for entertainment thing.

edit: And I'd guess we have a very high percentage of people who either go to college locally and then move away or go to college elsewhere and then move into the area.

I think the diversity of this area has to be far greater than the average ACC or SEC powerhouse area.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What it does is it puts all the conference champions (which would have to either be undefeated, or beaten an otherwise undefeated team) in a playoff pool.

How's that again?

You can still win your conference without being undefeated as well as without beating an otherwise undefeated team. Did I miss something else you changed somewhere, or was this not supposed to mean what you said?

(FTR, I went through your posts twice to see where this came from before asking, maybe I'm just overlooking it because my concentration is kind of off this afternoon)

[Young Drachma]

I never liked college football much because of the seeming predictability of it until I actually ended up at a D-1A school. I think that made me interest in the product across the board a lot more interesting and relevant.

But I too, have had it with the NCAA gestapo that run the games, that maintain such a tight grip so as to defy all logic and reason. I hate that schools like Wyoming spend insane amounts of money on sports thinking its their only chance to get respect on the national stage, when they'll never truly do anything other than tread water. And they make illogical decisions like cutting sports they've won national titles in (Skiing) to add sports that provide gender equity but make no sense at all in a place like this (Women's Tennis).

And as a former D-III athlete, I have a real problem with the fact that so-called non-revenue sports are valued less than those that are not. I realize it's a priority of each institution to choose what they'll do and such, but it's not as if the current structure really provides much incentive to do right by students.

Especially the students in the sports generating revenues. They were talking last night about a Florida State player who was such an anomaly because he was majoring in Chemistry and went on study abroad and such. Why does this have to be such an anomaly? Because the schools do a crappy job of recruiting kids who are actual students?

They don't care and they don't have to care. And until someone comes along with a more lucrative model for recruiting kids who would rather play sports than actually go to class.

At the same time, in lieu of a better model...it's better than nothing. Because kids are exposed to stuff they might not be otherwise and so, it's flawed and it stinks...but..I can't come up with a better solution that wouldn't cost tons of money.

[Young Drachma]

I think in the Northeast, particularly the NYC metro area, it's WAY more a competition for entertainment thing.

edit: And I'd guess we have a very high percentage of people who either go to college locally and then move away or go to college elsewhere and then move into the area.

I think the diversity of this area has to be far greater than the average ACC or SEC powerhouse area.

Or they go to small schools/academic ones that aren't D1-A and so, as a result, don't care. Or they're nominal players in the D1 game.

[I. J. Reilly]

For the NFL guys who seem to be struggling to understand the college game, the important thing to understand is that the national polls and even the national championship are a side show to the real deal. Conference play is what matters. It’s regularly referred to as the mythical national championship because it’s not that big of a deal. Sure, if your team is in it you desperately want them to win. But by that point of the season all of the important things have already happened, you’ve won your league, beaten your rival and set yourself up for a great year of recruiting. A BCS title is just icing on the cake.

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

[st.cronin]

For the NFL guys who seem to be struggling to understand the college game, the important thing to understand is that the national polls and even the national championship are a side show to the real deal. Conference play is what matters. It’s regularly referred to as the mythical national championship because it’s not that big of a deal. Sure, if your team is in it you desperately want them to win. But by that point of the season all of the important things have already happened, you’ve won your league, beaten your rival and set yourself up for a great year of recruiting. A BCS title is just icing on the cake.

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

Well said. As a Big 10 fan, this is the real reason I don't care for the BCS, because its just too jarring to see Texas playing in the Rose Bowl. Its not that I don't want Texas playing for the national championship - its that that bowl game somehow seems corrupted.

[molson]

And I almost forgot, GO BEAVS - FUCK THE DUCKS

You son of a bitch. (Is what my old classmates at U of O would say. Me, I'm indifferent. In fact, I bet your campus has less dirty hippies).

[MJ4H]

10 tiers of 12 teams each. The winner of tier one is the national champion. 11 game seasons for everyone, evenly matched.

1st place in each division gets promoted to the next tier up for next season. 2nd and 3rd place play a one-off game for another promotion spot. 11 and 12 get demoted.

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Oh and every year the two worst teams get demoted to Div 1AA or whatever and 2 new teams come into the system to try to work their way up.

[Warhammer]

How's that again?

You can still win your conference without being undefeated as well as without beating an otherwise undefeated team. Did I miss something else you changed somewhere, or was this not supposed to mean what you said?

(FTR, I went through your posts twice to see where this came from before asking, maybe I'm just overlooking it because my concentration is kind of off this afternoon)

Easy, using Michigan as the example, they go 0-3 during their non-conference schedule. They improve after their bye week and run the rest of the table. They go into Columbus and beat a previously unbeaten Ohio State.

Michigan at 9-3 is 9-0 in the conference, whereas OSU is 11-1 with an 8-1 conference record. Michigan gets the bid (and the conference title as they would currently).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Easy, using Michigan as the example, they go 0-3 during their non-conference schedule. They improve after their bye week and run the rest of the table. They go into Columbus and beat a previously unbeaten Ohio State.

Michigan at 9-3 is 9-0 in the conference, whereas OSU is 11-1 with an 8-1 conference record. Michigan gets the bid (and the conference title as they would currently).

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just read that as you saying it was guaranteed to be that way which isn't at all the case.

[Warhammer]

While their national title dreams are over, the season isn't over. Michigan's seniors have plenty to play for. They have never beaten Ohio State and they have never won a bowl game. Also, their national title dreams aren't over because of one blocked FG. Their national title dreams are over because they lost to a Division I-AA team, an apparently damn good Division I-AA team, but a I-AA team nonetheless. At home.

So, because they lost to a Div I-AA team, they've been eliminated from achieving great things this season. All the other items you mentioned mean relatively little, aside from winning the Big 10, which is still possible. Isn't it kind of silly that a team that wins the Big 10 with a 11-1 record is completely out of the national title picture?

They don't. Losing to a Division I-AA team pretty much proved that. While the game came down to the last play, Appalachain St. were the better team that game.

I reckon this hypothetical will again be proven false, perhaps as early as next week. Oregon runs the spread offense. Apparently Michigan is incapable of defending against such an offense.

I'm only using Michigan as my example. For all we know, Appalachian State could be the best team in the country, but we will never know. Part of that is because they are in a separate division. I can accept that, but the fact that Michigan could be (I thought Michigan was overrated going into this year, just for the record) the #2 team in the country and not have a title shot is absurd.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Isn't it kind of silly that a team that wins the Big 10 with a 11-1 record is completely out of the national title picture?

Not at all, since if that Michigan team wons the Big 10 with an 11-1 record, it would prove only that the Big 10 really wasn't much this year. And a Michigan appearance in the national title game this year would reduce the value of the national championship to the lowest point ever.

[Warhammer]

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I just read that as you saying it was guaranteed to be that way which isn't at all the case.

Again, wasn't saying that things were guaranteed to be that way, but things are much more interesting and teams have the opportunity to improve throughout the year and become the best team. Even if they have a poor start.

I remember that Colorado team a few years back that smashed Nebraska but got left out of the title game. I truly think that team was the best team in the country at that point, but we never got to answer that question because they were left out of the system.

[MJ4H]

Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

Yes, yes I did. I just wish it could be made to work.

[bbgunn]

What should happen is that the NFL should start a minor league/farm system for 18-22 year olds. I guarantee THAT would cause some good changes to college football. Plus the kids would legitimately get paid, instead of working (READ: not working) at some local car dealer between college games.

[JPhillips]

Again, wasn't saying that things were guaranteed to be that way, but things are much more interesting and teams have the opportunity to improve throughout the year and become the best team. Even if they have a poor start.

I remember that Colorado team a few years back that smashed Nebraska but got left out of the title game. I truly think that team was the best team in the country at that point, but we never got to answer that question because they were left out of the system.

But your system is also going to leave out teams that could be the best in the country. You're going to give playoff berths to generally inferior conferences. Sure they may occasionally have a title worthy team ala Boise St., but most of the time they simply won't be as good as the second place team in the SEC or Big10.

[TroyF]

1) Any playoff "system" is going to leave out some teams. But would I rather deal with the 17th and 18th ranked teams bitching about their shot vs. the 3rd and 4th? Yes.

2) The playoff or lack there of isn't why I prefer the NFL game. I enjoy the skill and strategy of the NFL a lot more. I enjoy the gameplay more.

3) I've resigned myself to the fact that a playoff will never happen. It sucks IMO, but that's the way it is. I've given up on the fight for one. You'll never convince someone who isn't for it that they should be and more importantly, you'll never convince the NCAA. (no matter how one sided the polls are in favor of one) It's a waste of time to even bother with it.

4) As I said earlier, I still appreciate and watch the college game. It's fun cheering for your school (or the school you grew up cheering for). There are some amazing plays and the enthusiasm is unmatched in the NFL. Still, I prefer the NFL game.

5) Happy fighting. :)

[k0ruptr]

I just skimmed through this thread, but I didnt see anything mentioned about how Michigan said uhm Hell No to Hawaii for the first game of the season (in Michigan btw) . I just think that is plain awesome. No we don't want Hawaii, cuz we want a 1-AA easy win on the schedule. :D

[Pumpy Tudors]

YEA WELL SETON HILL MIGHT AS WELL BE BOWL SUBDIVISION I-A BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE WVIAC CHAMPIONSHIP YET SINCE WE JUST MOVED UP TO D-II LAST YEAR SO NO PLAYOFFS FOR US GO GRIFFINS OK lol hawaii

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just skimmed through this thread, but I didnt see anything mentioned about how Michigan said uhm Hell No to Hawaii for the first game of the season (in Michigan btw) . I just think that is plain awesome. No we don't want Hawaii, cuz we want a 1-AA easy win on the schedule. :D

I don't think that's how it went down exactly.

[Warhammer]

Not at all, since if that Michigan team wons the Big 10 with an 11-1 record, it would prove only that the Big 10 really wasn't much this year. And a Michigan appearance in the national title game this year would reduce the value of the national championship to the lowest point ever.

You're missing the point of my argument. Let's say Michigan lost to Boise State at home. Boise State goes undefeated. That would not say anything negative about the Big 10.

Also, the point of my system is to take the discussion out of the system. We talk about who we think is the best team, but we do not see it played out on the field. The system I proposed forces the teams to actually win something. They have to win their conference. If a team feels that the best way to prepare for that is to play the toughest teams in the country and risk a loss, they are rewarded for that, rather than punished. At the end of the season, you have a tournament of champions rather than a tournament of teams that we think are really good.

Why is it that we can accept an 83-79 baseball team being the champions last year? Yet, nearly every CFB title is disputed to some extent. There is always discussion about it. The reason is simple, it is not settled on the field. If a team cannot win their conference (especially with many have the conference title games), they should not be in the national title debate.

[twothree]

10 tiers of 12 teams each. The winner of tier one is the national champion. 11 game seasons for everyone, evenly matched.

1st place in each division gets promoted to the next tier up for next season. 2nd and 3rd place play a one-off game for another promotion spot. 11 and 12 get demoted.

Yeah I know all of the problems with this system, but can you imagine how awesome tier one would be? And all those promotion/relegation battles throughout the season? Would be fucking heaven. At least to me.

Oh and every year the two worst teams get demoted to Div 1AA or whatever and 2 new teams come into the system to try to work their way up.Right up until you get to the point of trying to pay for the travel, through ticket prices. Plus forget about seeing most of the games on TV since the money for that is going to skew heavily to the upper end & leave little for the bottom. Can't even make some of that fly for regional networks since you're talking about UConn playing San Diego State (and similar) the cost for something like that goes off the chart versus the possible revenue.

I know you said you knew all of the problems, but I don't believe you gave enough consideration to those before declaring it's divinity.

What about about splitting the 10 tiers up into regions.

Using MattJones4Heisman's example, how about an east and west region with 5 tiers each. Since the 1st place teams are getting an automatic promotion (except in the very top east and west tier), they can play the other region's top team at the same tier in a bowl game. Add in the 8 regional promotion bowl games between the 2nd and 3rd place teams for a total of 13 somewhat meaningful bowl games.

Or, you could go with 3 or 4 regions and even less tiers per region.

[Huckleberry]

Well said. As a Big 10 fan, this is the real reason I don't care for the BCS, because its just too jarring to see Texas playing in the Rose Bowl. Its not that I don't want Texas playing for the national championship - its that that bowl game somehow seems corrupted.

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming. ;)

[twothree]

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming. ;)

With the BCS around the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions can't return to their (use to be) regularly scheduled programming in the Rose Bowl.

[I. J. Reilly]

Our bad, dude. Sorry for providing perhaps the two greatest Rose Bowl games ever. You may return to your regularly scheduled programming. ;)

Those weren’t Rose Bowl’s; they were bowl games that happened to be played in Pasadena.

[Huckleberry]

Those weren’t Rose Bowl’s; they were bowl games that happened to be played in Pasadena.

Somebody totally should have told the Tournament of Roses committee. They really screwed up when they had the grounds crew paint "Rose Bowl Game" on the field and when they approved this:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/ec/2006_BCS_championship_game_logo.jpg

[Mr. Wednesday]

Again, growing up in the northeast it's always been pro sports. If I grew up in another area maybe I'd have a go gators bumper sticker or something.
The northeast simply does not have the same kind of relationship with its state universities that most of the rest of the country does.

[Mr. Wednesday]

No need to go too far down this well-travelled road, but pretty much every playoff system that I have seen suggested would also include similar arguments or debate about which teams should get into the playoffs and which teams should not.

Even in college basketball, where you have a 64+ team field, there's a debate about "bubble" teams. The debate is often very similar to that in college football about "impressive" wins and the like.
The big difference is this: In college football right now, there is a realistic probability that a team that is not in the championship game would win the championship.

The more teams you include in the tournament, the smaller the chances that one of the teams that's left out could actually win the thing.

Considering any realistic college football playoff would probably include something like 8 teams, the debate would be much more intense.
Maybe so, but at that point most would concede that team number nine wouldn't have a very good chance of winning the championship.

Personally, I think a 16-team playoff is even better than eight, and that would make the chances of excluding a championship team minimal.

[k0ruptr]

I don't think that's how it went down exactly.

your right, It went down a lil diffrently (and maybe even more funny!)

Michigans Athletic director approached us for the game, our athletic director was a lil hesitent, but after talking to June and ass ath director, he decided sure why not lets play Mich in Mich. Then when your AD approached Lloyd Carr, Lloyd Carr said Hell no, hahahahaha.

[k0ruptr]

Dola, just so you don't feel bad, Appalachin St. turned Hawaii down also for the sept 1st game.

[General Mike]

The northeast simply does not have the same kind of relationship with its state universities that most of the rest of the country does.

Who in the northeast has a state university that plays 1-A football? Rutgers and UConn and Penn State. Rutgers was mediocre or worse for ever, UConn was 1-AA until about 5 years ago, and Penn State is one of the elite programs.

As it is tho, there are just too many other pro sports teams for any college program to really break thru.

[SFL Cat]

First, I'm a college football fan. I like the passion in the game and a majority of the guys play at this level because they love the game. Let's face it, this is as far as most of these kids will go with their football careers.

That said, if colleges really gave a damn about academic standards of their college players, then they'd do something like raise the GPA needed to play sports (i.e. 2.5 or 3.0). Of course, most schools would howl about unfairness since a lot of the star athletes (especially football and basketball players) can barely read or write.

[astrosfan64]

it's a northeast thing. not having any major college football powers (indeed really any major college sports teams at all, syracuse's one win notwithstanding). Really what do we have...college hockey in the northeast? That's the college sport we are strongest at. Everything else is elsewhere at the big state universities with the warm weather. We'll just never understand up here in the northeast.

What is Penn State?

Oh and that Temple powerhouse :)

[astrosfan64]

Somebody totally should have told the Tournament of Roses committee. They really screwed up when they had the grounds crew paint "Rose Bowl Game" on the field and when they approved this:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/ec/2006_BCS_championship_game_logo.jpg

I think he meant, they are not traditional Rose Bowl matchups.