WVU 48 - E.Carolina 7 Final

September 26, 2007

[ QUOTE ]

Where to start with this one???

That's the point: give us good debate about who the best teams in the nation are. As always, some teams will have an issue. It happens every March. However, the body of regular season work will decide who would get in.

There is NO WAY the SEC would lose money with a playoff system. People will STILL WATCH the regular season SEC games on CBS. It's the SEC, my friend, the best collegiate football in the nation. The deal won't suffer. Likewise, if you keep the bowls AND expand to a playoff, it would generate more money. It's simple economics, man. More games = more money.

Keep the smaller, fairly insignificant bowl games. That's how you keep the Hawaiis and TCUs of the college football universe happy.

What I can't seem to stress enough, is that, yes, every game would still matter! However, I think a "one-and-done" approach is badly off-centered. Three SEC teams would've beaten Ohio State last year, including a pair of 2-loss teams. Under an expanded playoff system, all the worthy teams would get a shot. Likewise, no conference would be slighted: let the best of each conference get in. If you expand the system to, let's say, 16 teams, you could let in a couple of smaller schools, such as "Boise State", to give them a shot at immortality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets start with the economics part... first each conference would be giving up 8 big time bowls for one or two teams to be displayed nationally. Not to mention the money they will lose to bowls paying them to play in their bowl. That is how colleges make money. WHo gets the money in the NCAA basketball the playoffs? oh yeah, the ncaa schools. The payoff for schools to get in the bowls is usually around or over a million dollars. Not to mention all the advertising theor school and confeence gets because of most games are played while no other ones are on. So now all the revenue is split 119 ways, yeah that seems like more money for just 7 more playoff games compared to a truckload of bowls. Just last year Ohio state- Illinois was one of the most watched televised games. Why? Ohio state had to win to get into the NAt. Champ. Same for all the games against NC hopefuls against lesser teams. Appy St, wouldnt even matter this season if your system was intact, michigan could just go on. It makes all games less exciting except for your own teams. How many people love bubble saturday on ESPN basketball? Probably a lot. Well every weekend every contender is on the bubble. thats what makes people watch. By making it a playoff teams can just breeze through the regular season, sit players at the end of the season, making it like a minor leagues for the NFL. the NCAA is different, thats what makes it unique and great.

So pretty much your economic idea is blown. The main reason actually that it hasn't changed is because of the money. Coaches would love to have a playoff. Athletic directors hate the idea. WHy? the money. They make so much money off of bowls its rediculous. A playoff once again would be split among 119 teams, and i really doubt that would be more than these bowls give.

And if you think people will watch every game in the regular season with the playoffs, then you are mistaken. It woulod just be like college basketball, no one really could care about the upper tiered teams exceot for rivalry games such as UNC-Duke (GO HEELS!) no one even remembers one of the greatest college basketball upsets in 2004 when Santa Clara whooped the future NCAA champions butt, UNC. No one cared. It didn't really matter. SAme would be with College football and a playoff. Ohio state loses to Northwestern, and nobody cares. All we would watch is our teams, and wait for sportscenter to see the scores in the morning. No big deal. I dont know how many times i have stayed up late into the morning hoping for a USC loss. Would i do that with a playoff? Heck no. WHy? It doesnt matter. they will still have a chance.

So basically go ahead and complain about the bowl system and have your whine and cheese during the holiday season that has been renamed the BOWL SEASON. Cause ill be watching the end of the greatest playoff system every made, the BCS system. Where every game counts. Could someone pass me some Tositos?

September 26, 2007

and lets say they expand it to 16 and let hawaii in... your gonna let hawaii get crushed by LSu or USC and let colt brennan end his great season that way? that doesnt seem fair. One time he is on National TV he doesnt get to showcase his ability...

Either way the system is flawed, lets just keep the tradition and integrity of the game intact...

Deleted Account · September 26, 2007

My heavens, man. Did you even read my previous arguments? It doesn't appear so. It looks like you basically rehashed what you just said into a more defensive format with comments that appear that you took .231 seconds to think up before you splattered them on the page. You didn't even reply to half my arguments. Let's go through this in bloody, laborious detail.

As I have repeated tirelessly and consistently, you would keep the bowl infrastructure intact. The number of "bowl" games would not change. What you would do, based on how many teams are in your playoff, is allocate a few of the upper tier "bowls" to the playoff system. This would work best with 8 teams. The "Big 4" would be the first round of the tournament. You would then have a national semifinal, and then a national final. Three MORE games under this system, my friend. If an SEC team is involved, thus, under my system, the SEC would get more money. You failed to address this crux of dispute. Again, simple economics: more games = more dollars. My theory isn't exactly "blown down", if you have the reasoning power to understand it.

The revenue isn't split 119 ways to begin with in the bowl games, so why should it be split 119 ways just because there's a playoff system? Keep it among the teams competing in it, just like the bowls. Sheesh.

How does it matter how Colt Brennan ends his season? To use a converse argument, he could very well end it with a loss, anyway! Any team with a solid secondary will stop that all-pass attack. If, and that's a big if, Hawaii makes a BCS game, they will get slaughtered, because they haven't played anyone more competitive than Concord University. Look at the WAC, it's pathetic. I'm sure Colt would much rather play Florida than Wyoming, like what might happen this year.

Ohio State-Illinois was not one of the most televised regular season games last year. It was more than a full point below the most televised regular season game, which is a big deal, considering that one point is equivalent to three million people, approximately. That honor belongs to Ohio State-Michigan, if you believe the folks at the Nielsen ratings, who come up with the whole "ratings" formula anyway. It pays to do a little research before you just splat a sentence on a page.

Why do you think people watch postseason collegiate basketball? Just to see which teams will survive the bubble? Of course not! To say otherwise would be foolish. You watch it for the conference tournies, half of which end the week before this fictitious Bubble Saturday, and three of which end on Sunday! You watch it because there are upsets, because the 14-seed is down to the 3-seed by 4 with a minute and a half to go. You say nobody remebers upsets. Yeah, people forgot about George Mason. I'm sure *nobody* remembers Richmond-Syracuse. Nothing special about Villanova. At Virginia, we remember Virginia-Gonzaga just because it was a good game. Yeah, right! That argument, also, falls flat on its face. If there were a college playoff, people would be stapled to their seats if Boston College as the lowest 2-seed was holding off the highest 1-seed LSU by 10 with 9:00 to go in the fourth quarter. Yeah, you're right, no one would watch that. NOT.

The system has wronged us three times in recent memory. 2007: crapfest featuring a ONE-LOSS Florida team and a Big-Televen soft Ohio State team. 2005: watch Oklahoma get pounded by USC when the next best team was in the Sugar Bowl. 2002: watch a Miami team demolish a Nebraska team that had no business being there. The system is obviously broke. A playoff will ensure that the best two teams play for the title! That's easy to see. I hate turning off my national title game at halftime. With the current system, this happens all too often. If it means teams with multiple losses play, so be it. It penalizes a monster conference like the SEC, where the best teams in the nation usually reside, that almost always has teams with one loss which are better than most conferences' undefeated teams. One loss shouldn't be the end of a season. It should create questions regarding their legitimacy, but not ruin their season. Look no further than last year, man.

Enjoy those Tostitos. I'll have a glass of common sense. However, I won't cry myself to sleep if it doesn't change. All I'm saying is, it should change, and there are glaring, obvious reasons why it should.

September 26, 2007

Let me just day this first, in the NCAA, if there is a tournament, then the revenue would be divided by the number of teams in the division, which in football in IA is 119. Thats just how it works in every NCAA sport. And secondly, do you think anyone would watch Ohio state Illinois if that game didn't determine the outcome of the whole season? i wasn't meaning that exact game, ohio state and michigans whole season's rating were so high that it promplted the Big Ten to create it's own TV network. even you cant argue that. And once again, the college basketball playoffs are amazing, but basketball is a whole different animal. It can be played in less days, and the teams are more evenly spread. (why do you think there is no IAA in basketball?) We watch for the cinderellas. Its just not the same with football.

yes some games may have sucked in the NC, but what about the great ones. Miami Ohio State double OT thriller? What about joe montana eating chicken soup to revitalize himself? what about the USC TExas matchup? what about the 1994 orange bowl? wide left baby. Would these matchups happen if their was a playoff? who knows? what if the two best teams are on the same side of the bracket?

and one more point on the whole economic situation with a playoff. Lets say boise state makes it to the finals. There is a realy good chance that they could LOSE money, instead of making any. The SCHOOLS pay for airplanes and lodging and food and all the resources a team may need. Not to mention that they will have short notice to book a flight for 100 some players and coaches, and get hotels and accomidations. Sure bigger colleges wont take the hit cause they have larger budgets, but the smaller schools will.

and as for the NCAA tournament splitting the money 119 ways, i assure you that im correct. 100% sure. i read it in an article talking about the economic situation. so not so fast my friend.

and also I was referring to he REGULAR SEASON, not the playoffs when it came to upsets. sure upsets happen in march madness but i wasnt referring to that, i was talking about how the regular season doesnt have an appeal in college basketball cause it doesnt really matter in the long run. Same would be the case if a playoff were implemented in football. Michigan could win the national championship after losing to Appy State with a playoff. That right there completely takes away from Appy St's accomplishment. They ended Michigans season on day 1.

So go ahead and tear this whole thing apart and talk about how stupid i was, cause really it's not like i try to write a paper for my english professor on here anyways.

So take your UVA vocab, your sports jacket (With the little UVA symbol on the pocket), your khakis, and your sperry's and enjoy your glass of common sense.

Ill take a coors light, and forget about common sense, cause im gonna enjoy this national championship, just like a;; the othe bowl games before it..

BigBlueAlum · September 26, 2007

[ QUOTE ]

Michigan could win the national championship after losing to Appy State with a playoff. That right there completely takes away from Appy St's accomplishment. They ended Michigans season on day 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your arguments are rather flawed to this point. First of all, I dont think Michigan would make this proposed playoff system if they lost to Appy State. Secondly, even if Michigan happened to make the playoffs and go on to win the national championship, then it wouldnt take away from Appy's accomplishments...it would add to them. Appalachian State beat the National Champions!! How much better could that be?

Deleted Account · September 26, 2007

I know for a fact that the revenues/prizes for collegiate bowls are not divided evenly among all 119 Division I-A teams. I'm dead certain on this. It may differ with basketball, but this is how it works with football. The winner gets a prize donated to the school's athletic department, while the loser gets nothing. Virginia won $700K in the 2005 Music City Bowl, thanks to the foot of Connor Hughes. Why not apply this system to a collegiate playoff? Let each round carry its own stipend for winning, as the bowl system does now.

In relation to this, let's say that last year's Fiesta Bowl was the first round of a collegiate playoff system. The award for winning the Fiesta Bowl? $13 million. Boise State, of course, would have advanced, while Oklahoma lost and earned nothing. Unless the players/coaches/media/band were staying in presidential suites at the Ritz, the school would definitely have enough money to support this, especially with a $13 million dollar check lying in the bank. Oklahoma isn't harmed, they're just treated like the other teams that lost a bowl game. Boise State would certainly not lose money in the process. It's a win-neutral situation, and an upgrade over what we have now. Why not change?

I definitely agree that basketball and football are different, insofar as football players definitely could not perform playing on three days rest. Thus, March Madness can progress much faster. However, the regular season does matter in both. Every part of it. Ask Clemson, who started 17-0, and had the most massive collapse this millenium to miss the NCAAs. Yes, basketball has 35-40 games per year, compared to the 12 for football. However, I find it illogical that one game can make or break national title hopes. See Florida last year, they were clearly the best, though they lost to Auburn once.

Michigan's season is not entirely ruined. They're 1-0 in the Big Televen, and still feasibly have a chance at the Rose Bowl, with as weak as that conference is.

There have been great national title games lately: Miami's win over Ohio State in 2003 (the second worst call in collegiate football history, next to the 5th down); the epic USC-Texas game in 2006. In both instances, if there was a playoff system, if any team was more worthy to play in those games, I believe those teams should have been afforded the right. However, more likely, this matchup would have been the result of the playoff. You simply list the 1st and 4th rated teams on one side of the bracket, and the 2nd and 3rd rated teams on the other. Both instances would've yielded that game, barring an upset; in the event of the upset, that team would have been more worthy, regardless.

I cannot support a system that gets it right barely half the time. A playoff ensures the best two teams play each other, not just the teams who's schedule is gaudily built against creampuffs and weak conference foes.

I've been harsh in my posts, lately, and I apologize to you for it. When you work on 5 hours of sleep for months at a time, you're bound to cranky spurts, and I try to fight against it. Law school's tough, man. I love sports, and that's why I set aside time to post here.

Not all UVA people are like that generalization, though I do wear khakis because they go with pretty much anything, and I have little sense of fashion. Some Virginia students/alums are arrogant. Most aren't. Again, I apologize if I degraded you in any way; I was trying to pick apart the argument, and I guess I crossed the line.

I say we just agree to disagree.

GMan · September 26, 2007