2012 College Football Thread

[ChicagoRon]

I tend to agree about the Basketball tournament, but we are in the minority.

I still think requiring a conference championship could hurt that as well.. but now that (I think) every conference (except maybe the big east) has a conference championship game, we are in better shape.

I'm still not a big believer in playing two "bowl" games.. I would not pay for the travel twice. I think the higher seeded conference should host a "home" game in the semi-final round, or they should just rotate...

as in

2011 - SEC hosts B10, P10 hosts B12
2012- B10 hosts SEC, B12 Hosts P10
2013 - B10 hosts P10, SEC hosts B12
2014 - P10 hosts B10, B12 hosts SEC

That is predicated on the emergence of four "super-conferences" and shutting out any teams that are outsiders.

The "host" games could be at a pre-defined location, but at least it would be regional.. so the B10 host site could be Cbus, Ann Arbor, or maybe the Colts stadium.. regardless of which team wins.

 

[Ambulance Chaser]



I don't love it.
I think it's a fun event, but I don't think it does a great job in equitably determining what basketball team is the best, and it's also done a great job of hollowing out the value of the regular season and conference tournaments. It's great theater, but I'm not sure it's great sports.
I actually think the current BCS system almost certainly does a better job matching up the best two teams in the country then the NCAA Basketball Title game does.

You can make that claim about any playoff system. The team that is the best during the regular season is often not the team that wins the championship.

 

[tj100]



You can make that claim about any playoff system. The team that is the best during the regular season is often not the team that wins the championship.

It's true. And it calls into question what a "championship" is. Is it a determination of what team is the "best" in a given year, or is it a tournament in and of itself?

I think the pro playoffs (with the exception of the NFL) do a pretty good job of leveling that playing field by having teams play a multiple-game series in the playoffs. It's much harder to pull an upset in a 7 game series than in an elimination tournament.

 

[Gibonius]

Can't really do a multi-game series in football for fairly obvious reasons. There's always that element of luck in football, you can never really get rid of it. Part of the fun, really. You always have that second guessing if the "best" team won, if the coaches screwed it up, if things just didn't go right, etc, etc.


One of the nice things about the NCAA-BB system is that it gives the teams some leeway to play better competition during the season. It's really risky in football to schedule games like LSU-Oregon (etc) and the reward is pretty low for teams in the power conferences. Fewer cupcake games is generally a good thing.

 

[tj100]



I tend to agree about the Basketball tournament, but we are in the minority.
I still think requiring a conference championship could hurt that as well.. but now that (I think) every conference (except maybe the big east) has a conference championship game, we are in better shape.
I'm still not a big believer in playing two "bowl" games.. I would not pay for the travel twice. I think the higher seeded conference should host a "home" game in the semi-final round, or they should just rotate...
as in
2011 - SEC hosts B10, P10 hosts B12
2012- B10 hosts SEC, B12 Hosts P10
2013 - B10 hosts P10, SEC hosts B12
2014 - P10 hosts B10, B12 hosts SEC
That is predicated on the emergence of four "super-conferences" and shutting out any teams that are outsiders.
The "host" games could be at a pre-defined location, but at least it would be regional.. so the B10 host site could be Cbus, Ann Arbor, or maybe the Colts stadium.. regardless of which team wins.

There's currently no championship game in the Big 12, but there will be once the dust settles on realignment.

I actually really like the current trend towards super conferences in this regard. Some of the Big East proposals floated include a huge number of teams (like 20) in West and East Divisions. My ideal would be:

Assume there are 120 teams in FBS football.

Break them into 8 conferences: Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Pac 12, SEC, Big East, CUSA and WAC.

Give the Big 10, Big 12, ACC, Pac 12, and SEC 12 teams each = 60 teams.

Give the Big East, CUSA, and WAC 20 teams.

Have the 8 Conference Champions play in a three-round (effectively four-round with the conference championship game) tournament. First round at home, second round at the current BCS Bowl Sites, final at a 'Super Bowl' location.

EDIT: math...

 

[moffy]

In my opinion, this is the ideal situation.

Disband the Big-12 and have its current teams go to the Pac-12, Big-10, and SEC. Merge ACC and Big East. Fill in the rest with the best current non-AQ programs (Boise, TCU, Notre Dame, etc.) to have each conference at 16 or 18 teams. This gives us four super conferences. Conference winners play in a 4 team playoff.

Everyone else can go ***************. Or, to add insult to injury, have best non-AQ teams play in a playoff. Winner plays Div-IAA champ for best ****** team honors.

Most of this is serious.

 

[tj100]



In my opinion, this is the ideal situation.

Disband the Big-12 and have its current teams go to the Pac-12, Big-10, and SEC. Merge ACC and Big East. Fill in the rest with the best current non-AQ programs (Boise, TCU, Notre Dame, etc.) to have each conference at 16 or 18 teams. This gives us four super conferences. Conference winners play in a 4 team playoff. 

Everyone else can go ***************. Or, to add insult to injury, have best non-AQ teams play in a playoff. Winner plays Div-IAA champ for best ****** team honors. 

Most of this is serious. 

If we were going four-team playoff, I think I'd be inclined to cut it down to three super conferences (probably the Pac12, SEC, Big 12) with 18 or 20 teams, and then one "super duper" conference with everybody else (either 60 or 66 teams). How the "super duper" conference picks who gets their slot is their problem. This system would probably give an outside team like Boise State a significantly better shot at a title than they have now.

 

[ChicagoRon]



If we were going four-team playoff, I think I'd be inclined to cut it down to three super conferences (probably the Pac12, SEC, Big 12) with 18 or 20 teams, and then one "super duper" conference with everybody else (either 60 or 66 teams). How the "super duper" conference picks who gets their slot is their problem. This system would probably give an outside team like Boise State a significantly better shot at a title than they have now.

Apparently you are not familiar with the politics of college football. The Big 10 has the most cash (still) and will not go away. You've got a better shot at disbanding the b12... but none of those four are going anywhere. The big east and CUSA only survive because of basketball.

Also - if the conferences get too big, you lose some key rivalry matchups and limit the ability to have non-conference play which are also not going away.

I am a big believer in having a system where the best of the non-FBS conferences gets to be promoted and the worst FBS school gets demoted each year, but people have already explained why that would never work......so... I'm not sure what the answer is... but eliminating the B10 brings teh lulz

 

[tj100]



Apparently you are not familiar with the politics of college football. The Big 10 has the most cash (still) and will not go away. You've got a better shot at disbanding the b12... but none of those four are going anywhere. The big east and CUSA only survive because of basketball.
Also - if the conferences get too big, you lose some key rivalry matchups and limit the ability to have non-conference play which are also not going away.
I am a big believer in having a system where the best of the non-FBS conferences gets to be promoted and the worst FBS school gets demoted each year, but people have already explained why that would never work......so... I'm not sure what the answer is... but eliminating the B10 brings teh lulz

For some reason my brain isn't 100% tonight; first my math was wrong, now I want to eliminate the Big 10. I'd knock out the Big12 first. Realistically, I think you have to do it as a three round playoff with 8 teams or 6 teams (with two byes).

 

[munchausen]



I am a big believer in having a system where the best of the non-FBS conferences gets to be promoted and the worst FBS school gets demoted each year, but people have already explained why that would never work.

I was musing the other day...ok, i was high...but I was thinking about what it would take to run college football the way they do European soccer leagues. And by that I mean a round robin championship, with promotion and relegation. Even with a single round robin, you are talking about either a lot of games or a lot of leagues, and a most of the regional rivalries are in jeopardy, to say the least.

There are a million reasons this will never happen and probably a million more that it shouldn't, but if you really want to settle who the best team in the country is then that's how you do it.

 

[eg1]



Agreed. They can't all be pretty. I kind of thought that game might be a bit ugly. With Tech and the SECCG on the horizon, it's easy to look ahead of a terrible UK team.

I heard about this earlier.
RIP, Larry. A lot of his calls are permanent parts of Bulldog history.

Here are a few of my favourites ...



[VIDEO][/VIDEO]

 

[Benzito]



I was musing the other day...ok, i was high...but I was thinking about what it would take to run college football the way they do European soccer leagues. And by that I mean a round robin championship, with promotion and relegation. Even with a single round robin, you are talking about either a lot of games or a lot of leagues, and a most of the regional rivalries are in jeopardy, to say the least.
There are a million reasons this will never happen and probably a million more that it shouldn't, but if you really want to settle who the best team in the country is then that's how you do it.

You could do promotion / relegation on a regional level (pair up the Pac 12 and a 12 member WAC, the Big 12 and MWC, Big 10 and MAC, etc.). Of course, nobody in the existing top level would ever agree to a system in which they have one or two ****** years and drop down to the second division. Additionally, unlike the EPL and other professional soccer leagues, there is so much of a school's identity involved with their conference and rivalries. Also, one must think about travel schedules and home-and-home series planned many years in advance. All of that goes out the window if your upcoming home-and-home with Ohio State can't happen because they are fighting it out against Toledo, Miami U, Temple, and so on.

It's nice to dream, though, of a system that rewards success over tradition. Kind of like the American Way or something.

 

[AldenPyle]



USC is ranked in the computer polls, but not the USA Today or Harris "human" polls. The computers have USC ranked as high as #6 (Billingsley), but most have them in the mid-teens. So as far as the computers are concerned, the USC games had the appropriate impact on the rankings.

Thanks!

 

[StephenHero]



So you hate the NCAA Basketball Tournament?

And the NFL. And MLB. And every other league that uses the wild card......

 

[edinatlanta]

Rivalry weekend... which teams you like/supporting?

Teams I actually care about winning:

FSU.

Teams I'd like to win:

aTm (<3 u bhowie!)
Pitt, I guess.
Auburn
Arkansas
UNC
Clemson
Notre Dame
For UGA and Tech....

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

UGA...

Rest of the teams can ***************, I don't give a ****.