Conference Re-Alignment Thread Part Who Knows

[Cardot]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I'd rather have the bowl game system if I'm a university president because at least my team can have a chance to claim some sort of championship. Take a team like Texas Christian and see what winning the Rose Bowl has done for them. There is nobody, repeat nobody around the Fort Worth area that is complaining about not having a chance for the National Championship.

I'll have to take your word on that. I would find it a bit frustrating to complete a perfect season, and then be handed a silver medal.

If I'm making materials to promote my university, I'd rather have something like Idaho Potato Bowl Champions rather than NCAA Tournament Semi-Finalist. With a bowl, you have a one in two chance of being crowned a champion in one way or another. With a playoff, you have a much greater chance of being on the outside looking in.

Hopefully they can find it, deal a death blow to games like the Rose, Cotton, Sugar and other bowls, and give satisfaction to a lot of fans.

I like bowl games. I don't want them to go away. I just want the top 8 teams to take two weeks to determine who plays in which BCS bowl. 62 of the 70 bowl teams are completely unaffected as is each bowl.

As for the logistics, I guess we'll have to disagree. I am confident that college fans would be able to make due on short notice.

[lonewolf371]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

As for the logistics, I guess we'll have to disagree. I am confident that college fans would be able to make due on short notice.

I'm sure they could make do, especially if those games take place on campus sites. People are crazy about football and they'll find a way to see their teams.

[wildthing2022000]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

If you think games other than the NC game don't matter, then that's the problem. These games are huge to a lot of schools. To a Pac 12 or Big Ten team the Rose Bowl is a huge deal. Bowl games are rewards for schools. People get so focused on National Champion, that they lose sight of all the other things there are to play for.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

The games mean nothing to the schools the checks connected to them does. Yeah the Rose Bowl is a big deal, if you had no shot at the NC game. Reward like that are just as worthless as participation trophies, you finished at .500, so as a reward you get to play another .500 team and the school gets paid for it. If this stuff was so great then why is it the only sport to do such a thing? I don't see the NFL "rewarding" all the non-playoff/over .500 teams to play a bunch of games while the playoffs are going on.

[untrugby]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

If you think games other than the NC game don't matter, then that's the problem. These games are huge to a lot of schools. To a Pac 12 or Big Ten team the Rose Bowl is a huge deal. Bowl games are rewards for schools. People get so focused on National Champion, that they lose sight of all the other things there are to play for.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

considering schools LOSE money going to a lot of those minor bowls im not sure its so much of a reward

[TDenverFan]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

considering schools LOSE money going to a lot of those minor bowls im not sure its so much of a reward

Took the words right out of my mouth...

[DonkeyJote]

considering schools LOSE money going to a lot of those minor bowls im not sure its so much of a reward

It's not a reward for the schools. It's a reward for the players, staff, and fans.

And the Rose Bowl, and other bcs games wouldn't be the same. Right now, you play for the right to play in that game. If it became two losers of a playoff, it becomes a let down instead of the culmination of a great season.

And the plus one, the way I see it, isn't a4 team playoff. I wouldn't intentionally put the four teams against each other. They'd play in their traditional tie in games.

One big change I'd make is that I'd have a committee do the bcs rankings instead of a computer

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[untrugby]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

And the Rose Bowl, and other bcs games wouldn't be the same. Right now, you play for the right to play in that game. If it became two losers of a playoff, it becomes a let down instead of the culmination of a great season.

a lot of times the BCS bowls are let downs for the teams that just missed being in the NC

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

And the plus one, the way I see it, isn't a4 team playoff. I wouldn't intentionally put the four teams against each other. They'd play in their traditional tie in games.

So in your idea of a +1, the teams play in their traditional tie in games then what? If the winners of those games then play each other, then that equals a playoff.

@ Perfect Zero: You're telling me that if you were the president or AD at TCU and you were given a choice of playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, or having the opportunity of being 1 of 8 teams to play in a playoff with the chance of being crowned National Championship, you would rather play in the Rose Bowl?

You say you'd rather have a bowl because there's a chance to win "some sort of a championship." What do you think a playoff gives? It would give 8 teams a chance to win an ACTUAL championship.

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

One big change I'd make is that I'd have a committee do the bcs rankings instead of a computer

I agree 1000% with this. I still can't believe 1/3 of the ranking comes from people who will never have the time to watch even 3 of the other teams in the top 25 every week (the coaches). Not to mention the computer formulas that are not required to be public.

[DonkeyJote]

So in your idea of a +1, the teams play in their traditional tie in games then what? If the winners of those games then play each other, then that equals a playoff.

@ Perfect Zero: You're telling me that if you were the president or AD at TCU and you were given a choice of playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, or having the opportunity of being 1 of 8 teams to play in a playoff with the chance of being crowned National Championship, you would rather play in the Rose Bowl?

You say you'd rather have a bowl because there's a chance to win "some sort of a championship." What do you think a playoff gives? It would give 8 teams a chance to win an ACTUAL championship.

In my idea of a plus 1, the only difference would be that they wouldn't pick #1 and #2 until after the bowls.

And if I'm TCU, your damn right I want to play in the Rose Bowl. I get to go to Pasadena and forever say I was a part of the team that won the Rose Bowl. In a tournament, it'd be great if my team won the national championship, but otherwise it's a big let down. In the bowl system, a lot of teams get to finish the year with momentum, and feeling good about their year. In a playoff, one gets to feel better.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Perfect Zero]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

@ Perfect Zero: You're telling me that if you were the president or AD at TCU and you were given a choice of playing Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, or having the opportunity of being 1 of 8 teams to play in a playoff with the chance of being crowned National Championship, you would rather play in the Rose Bowl?

You say you'd rather have a bowl because there's a chance to win "some sort of a championship." What do you think a playoff gives? It would give 8 teams a chance to win an ACTUAL championship.

If I have a choice between a 1 in 2 shot of being the champion of a bowl game and rewarding my team, boosters and fans with a trip to Los Angeles or a 1 in 8 shot while traveling to the armpit of Alabama facing a hostile environment and no shot of having any actual advantage, I'd take the Rose Bowl. Being the Rose Bowl Champion is much better than being blown-out in hostile territory as a playoff semifinalist.

By the way, Texas Christian University is the ACTUAL Champion of the Rose Bowl Game. It wasn't an illusion; it really happened.

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

If I have a choice between a 1 in 2 shot of being the champion of a bowl game and rewarding my team, boosters and fans with a trip to Los Angeles or a 1 in 8 shot while traveling to the armpit of Alabama facing a hostile environment and no shot of having any actual advantage, I'd take the Rose Bowl. Being the Rose Bowl Champion is much better than being blown-out in hostile territory as a playoff semifinalist.

By the way, Texas Christian University is the ACTUAL Champion of the Rose Bowl Game. It wasn't an illusion; it really happened.

Okay well this is one of the more ridiculous arguments that I've ever read. Giving up a shot to play for a National Championship because it's more difficult than winning 1 game is incredibly dumb to me. You think it's a reward to your team and coaches to take away their shot at a National Championship?

If you could ask any player for TCU if they would have rather played Auburn, at Auburn, if it were part of a National Championship playoff, or go to LA and play Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl, I would think they would pick the former over the latter. I know I would have.

[Jr.]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

In my idea of a plus 1, the only difference would be that they wouldn't pick #1 and #2 until after the bowls.

And if I'm TCU, your damn right I want to play in the Rose Bowl. I get to go to Pasadena and forever say I was a part of the team that won the Rose Bowl. In a tournament, it'd be great if my team won the national championship, but otherwise it's a big let down. In the bowl system, a lot of teams get to finish the year with momentum, and feeling good about their year. In a playoff, one gets to feel better.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

It's really hard for me to believe that you or Perfect Zero actually play/played competitive sports if you'd rather feel good about your season after your last game than have the opportunity to play for a National Championship.

Maybe this is why we can't find common ground on this. I would pick a chance to play for a National Championship, no matter how many games it took to get there, every time over playing 1 game that didn't result in being crowned National Champion immediately after.

Anyway, this is getting even further off-topic so I'll agree to disagree.

[DonkeyJote]

It's really hard for me to believe that you or Perfect Zero actually play/played competitive sports if you'd rather feel good about your season after your last game than have the opportunity to play for a National Championship.

Maybe this is why we can't find common ground on this. I would pick a chance to play for a National Championship, no matter how many games it took to get there, every time over playing 1 game that didn't result in being crowned National Champion immediately after.

Anyway, this is getting even further off-topic so I'll agree to disagree.

You don't know me, so don't pretend like you know a thing about me over a message board. I've played sports my whole life, and am actually an extremely competitive person.

I don't value this notion that there has to be a definitive national champion. You know why TCU is so happy with their Rose Bowl win? Because being National Champion was never a goal for them. Pete Carroll always set winning the Rose Bowl as the goal. Playing in and winning the National Championship game was a bonus. It just isn't the goal. I'm sure TCU would love to play in a tournament. But not any more than they loved playing in the Rose Bowl. They finished their season as Champions. Just because you don't value that championship, don't make the mistake of thinking that others don't. Losing a game like the Rose Bowl (and don't kid yourself into thinking it'd be the same if teams had to lose to get there) would be a travesty in College Football.

Let's not also forget that a playoff would put the game count at 16 games for some teams. That's just way too much. What's the real benefit College Football would see from a playoff? They'd be giving up a lot, and risking more, to get very little in return.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Chip Douglass]

Re: A&M to the SEC starting to blow up again on Twitter

I don't value this notion that there has to be a definitive national champion. You know why TCU is so happy with their Rose Bowl win? Because being National Champion was never a goal for them. Pete Carroll always set winning the Rose Bowl as the goal. Playing in and winning the National Championship game was a bonus. It just isn't the goal. I'm sure TCU would love to play in a tournament. But not any more than they loved playing in the Rose Bowl. They finished their season as Champions. Just because you don't value that championship, don't make the mistake of thinking that others don't. Losing a game like the Rose Bowl (and don't kid yourself into thinking it'd be the same if teams had to lose to get there) would be a travesty in College Football.

I'm sure TCU enjoyed playing in the Rose Bowl, but seriously, playing for a Rose Bowl: playing for a championship as being in a vegetative state: having sex with Jessica Alba for the rest of your life.

What's the real benefit College Football would see from a playoff?

Decide the champion on the field?

The problem with the BCS/non-playoff formats in college football (other than excluding consensus #1 or undefeated teams) is that there isn't enough information to guarantee that the two best teams in the country play each other.

The top teams rarely play each other in-season since teams are increasingly scheduling conservative OOC and the 12-13 game college football regular season is simply too short for any definitive conclusions to be drawn about the two best teams in the country. Even in a supposed "no-doubter" year like 2005 where USC and Texas were widely assumed to be the two best teams in the country, the #4 team had 7 1st round picks, a future Heisman Trophy winner at QB, and already played an extremely close game with Texas (and arguably wins if Troy Smith plays the whole game).

So there isn't enough worthwhile data in college football to discern #1-#2 from #3-#4 and #3-4 from #5-6 and #5-6 from #7-8. This is exactly why additional games need to be played between the top 8 teams. And when you don't have a playoff, you get circumstances like 2004 Auburn, who was essentially denied a championship berth since voters in August 2004 arbitrarily decided that Auburn was the 17th best team in the country while Oklahoma was the #2 team.