Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Has the time finally come?

Started by BSLMikeLowe , Apr 24 2012 01:37 PM

Please log in to reply

14 replies to this topic

#1 BSLMikeLowe

CFB Analyst

Moderators
19,394 posts

LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:37 PM

There seems to be some smoke signals indicating that the college football postseason could undergo major change once the current BCS contract expires after the 2013 season. With the various changes in leadership in some conferences, plus the universities starting to see the insane amount of money they can make from TV, it does seem like the momentum is finally here for something good to happen.

http://espn.go.com/c...t-bcs-structure

To understand the future of the college postseason, which the BCS bosses will take up again this week, listen to what hasn't been said.

When SEC commissioner Mike Slive asserted in January that the BCS championship would be transformed, "and I don't think those changes are going to be tweaks," no one rose to rebut him.

The silence that met Slive's comment to Tony Barnhart of CBS College Sports spoke volumes. For 14 years, in the face of loud, nasty and occasionally shrewd commentary mocking the BCS, the administrators in charge of it kept repeating their belief in its virtues.

When USA Today published a memo earlier this month outlining four new formats the 120 FBS schools are considering, the proponents of the status quo said nothing.

@HardCountCFB

Back to top

#2 mweb08

HOF

Members
30,356 posts

LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:05 PM

I hope so.

I do hope they don't go overboard, though. To me, the perfect number is 6 so it rewards the top 2 teams with a bye. 8 is the highest I'd be alright with.

Back to top

#3 Pedro Cerrano

I Miss McNulty

Members
35,538 posts

LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:53 PM

8 teams. Seeds 1-4 get home games. The semi-finals and Final are played in the various BCS stadiums, rotating each year.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks. Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33

Back to top

#4 BSLMikeLowe

CFB Analyst

Moderators
19,394 posts

LocationPortland, Oregon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

It almost certainly sounds like it will be 4 to start with. But it's a huge step in the right direction, and since college football seems to make these sort of changes incrementally, I think we'd see the field increase down the road. I'm not a fan of byes, so I'd prefer 8 teams.

@HardCountCFB

Back to top

#5 BSLChrisStoner

Owner

Administrators
156,027 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:21 PM

SI: BCS meetings setting course for college football post-season change
http://sportsillustr...l?sct=cf_t11_a1

@BmoreSportsLife

Back to top

#6 Mackus

HOF

Members
60,712 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

I'd go with 4 but also keep all the other bowl games. You avoid teams ending up playing 16 or 17 games. Only two teams end up with one extra game played. Teams that don't make the playoff can still go to Bowls and make money just like usual.

I wouldn't do any automatic tie-ins or anything like that. Some committee, heck even use the BCS rankings, picks the 4 best teams in order. 1 plays 4, 2 plays 3, winners go at it for the title, all on neutral sites.

Back to top

#7 Nuclear Dish

Rookie

Members
573 posts

LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:34 PM

I have a real problem with the neutral sites idea. The southern teams never play in inclement weather, which I think gives them a huge advantage.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak

Back to top

#8 Oriole85

HOF

Members
26,321 posts

LocationNorthern VA

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:25 PM

I have a real problem with the neutral sites idea. The southern teams never play in inclement weather, which I think gives them a huge advantage.

Sort of like the Super Bowl, besides the one currently planned for NY. You can argue how that's "different," but it's the same principle of field/conditions advantage for warm weather/dome teams.

I think the stat with Florida is they haven't even played a non-conference game outside the state of Florida since 1991 and even when these SEC schools do as you alluded to it's at the beginning of the year.

I think the idea of going to college campuses might be problematic if a Boise, Washington State, or Hawaii is hosting (just hypotheticals). It would be cool for Notre Dame or Alabama to host a game though.

No system is going to appease everyone. #5 is going to complain about being slighted. It's a huge step for college football. And the good news is the regular season will still be very relevant unlike college basketball and looks like you'll have more of a championship.

@levineps

Back to top

#9 Nuclear Dish

Rookie

Members
573 posts

LocationZichron Yaakov, Israel

Posted 27 April 2012 - 01:01 AM

Sort of like the Super Bowl, besides the one currently planned for NY. You can argue how that's "different," but it's the same principle of field/conditions advantage for warm weather/dome teams.

I actually don't have an issue with the championship game being played in a warm-weather neutral site. But if you are going to expand it to a playoff system, no matter how many teams participate, you have to allow the cold-weather teams as much a chance to reach the championship as anyone else.

Think about it, there's also the travel advantage. How much easier is it for Alabama and LSU fans to travel to the Sugar, Orange, or Cotton Bowls than it is for fans of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Notre Dame? And now we could be talking about having to make multiple trips.

Which, BTW, is ridiculous. Yet another reason for a home field situation to play itself out. Yes, people do travel to different regional sites in the basketball tournament, but usually, the top teams play closer to home.

"Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

-Walter Sobchak

Back to top

#10 Oriole85

HOF

Members
26,321 posts

LocationNorthern VA

Posted 27 April 2012 - 09:42 AM

Think about it, there's also the travel advantage. How much easier is it for Alabama and LSU fans to travel to the Sugar, Orange, or Cotton Bowls than it is for fans of Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan St., and Notre Dame? And now we could be talking about having to make multiple trips.

Which, BTW, is ridiculous. Yet another reason for a home field situation to play itself out. Yes, people do travel to different regional sites in the basketball tournament, but usually, the top teams play closer to home.

I agree obviously, but it's always been that way for the Big Ten with the Rose Bowl. When UCLA (plays at the Rose Bowl) or USC is playing, they don't even have to travel as opposed to Penn State, who has to go coast-to-coast. Also, midwestern cities in general with Chicago being an obvious exception are not destination, although from all reports Indy has done a fantastic job with events. The bottomline it's early January, where would you rather go to Detroit or Miami?

Clearly it favors the SEC the most (Miami/New Orleans) and the Pac-12 (Phoenix/Los Angeles). Clearly hurts after the Big 10, the Big 12 and then probably the Big East(do they still count?) ACC it helps more than it hurts with Miami.

The basketball tournament is much more made-for-tv than football. While the ratings are great, much of the attendance particularly when it's in domes is very underwhelming. And most of the time, people only go to the games when "their" team is playing. My cousin and uncle went to the Championship Game in Atlanta when Maryland was in it and had no problem getting tickets since you had to buy tickets to both sessions and many fans of the losing teams from that Saturday were more than happy to part with their tickets.

@levineps