| College Football The place to talk about college football teams other than Ohio State |
10-16-2007, 05:17 PM
|
 |
SC(tm)
Senior Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,364
Points: 1,042,629.81
Bank: 107,355.24
Total Points: 1,149,985.05
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thump
The whole argument has been that the lower bowls would be used as the early playoff games.
|
No. I and others have advocated that early playoff games be played at the home site of the higher seed. Lower bowls go on completely outside the playoff system, just like they currently go on completely outside of the BCS!!1111!
__________________
|
10-16-2007, 05:30 PM
|
 |
21st Century Buckeye Man
Senior Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,403
Points: 4,307,120.06
Bank: 1,511.32
Total Points: 4,308,631.38
|
|
Playoffs that utilize lower seed going to higher seed for first round game (earlt ot mid-December) made sense the first time I heard it mentioned, in the 1990's, from John Cooper. One of the more intelligent things to come out of his mouth. I would love to see Florida, LSU, or USC come into Big Ten country in early to mid-December for a game.
Thump - I think lower tiered bowls, like Alamo Bowl or Holiday Bowl, would be fine mainly because these bowls usually don't get teams that would be in the playoffs to begin with. Think back a couple of years ago when OSU was in the Alamo Bowl. I don't know it for a fact, but I bet they were [censored]ting themselves with joy getting OSU to be in their bowl game. |
10-16-2007, 06:00 PM
|
 |
The Badgers!!
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,855
Points: 5,441,056.26
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 5,441,056.26
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by methomps
No. I and others have advocated that early playoff games be played at the home site of the higher seed. Lower bowls go on completely outside the playoff system, just like they currently go on completely outside of the BCS!!1111!
|
This sounds good.
I've always heard people trying to incorporate the lower bowls into the playoff and had no idea how that would work. |
10-16-2007, 09:14 PM
|
 |
Maize and Blue Wahoo
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,433
Points: 9,251.04
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 9,251.04
|
|
|
Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?
__________________
Plug of No Shame: Am now blogging UVA sports. Take a peek and say hello at From Old Virginia.
|
10-16-2007, 09:21 PM
|
 |
Boom Goes the Dynamite
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,027
Points: 1,925.11
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,925.11
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HailToMichigan
Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?
|
I think its different though. If it were a playoff situation, injuries wouldn't be as huge a deal as they would be in the middle of the season. If a player gets hurt during a playoff game, it's definitely a bad thing for them to have to rehab from it, but it wouldn't have a long-lasting effect on the team's season that year.
__________________
Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here.
|
10-16-2007, 09:31 PM
|
 |
Haole in da hills
|
|
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,284
Points: 48,431,731.54
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 48,431,731.54
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thump
The whole argument has been that the lower bowls would be used as the early playoff games.
|
Exactly what I've been saying since day one. The lower-tier bowls, i.e. the Thump Anal Lube Bowl, would rather have a #1 vs #16 or even a #8 vs #9 first-round playoff matchup instead of a couple unranked 7-5 or 6-6 teams.
__________________
|
10-16-2007, 09:56 PM
|
 |
The internet never forgets.
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,525
Points: 20,200,072.35
Bank: 2,930.32
Total Points: 20,203,002.67
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HailToMichigan
Coaches put up a huge hissy-fit when the NCAA altered the rules a bit, the end result of which was roughly 5-10 more plays per game. And they really hated the 13-game regular season that we had a few years back. They complained that their players were now more likely to get hurt. Won't they kick and scream when you start adding games to the schedule via a playoff? Especially anything higher than one involving four teams that adds three games?
|
More than anything I see a bunch of kicking and screaming over #16 (WAC champion) Upsetting #1 on some amazing play at the end, and don't say it couldn't happen. The thing is, the way the BCS currently is, there's no real chance for those smaller schools from Non-BCS conferences to ever get a shot at the title game. No one wants to imagine SDSU National Champions.
I am against a playoff system, I love that every game matters so much, even if it's a game against a small in-state school, but I do realize there needs to be some tweaking to the BCS system. As it stands, you have your heavy hitters, about 15 teams, that are running at it every year.
I also hate the fact that when a team wins the Big10, and they don't play for the NC, they have to come to the west coast which in a lot of cases is almost a home game for teams. where tsun and tOSU have to fly across the country, cal has a 45 minute flight, USC fans are in their backyard and UCLA is at home. | |
