The "New" NCAA Tourney
by WarDamnZach on Apr 7, 2009 10:00 PM CDT
in Football
Email
Print
While watching
What is so damn hard about doing the same tournament for football? I have heard the complaints about fans traveling, and how to schedule it, and many other issues. It is all bunk to me. The NCAA does it with Division II. They play their National Championship game in
No matter how it is laid out, some team is going to be the odd team out, and that is understandable. But at least it gives 16 teams a shot to play for it. Did you catch that… play for it! It is not some old sports writer, retired coach, or even a current coach, that gets to say who is playing in the National Championship Game… it is the teams themselves. All other NCAA sports decide their champions this way, why can’t the big boys?
If you say it is about overall money, I am going to laugh at you. I will look directly at you and laugh in your face. If you think that the NCAA Basketball Tournament makes money, you have seen nothing like the cash that a NCAA Football Tournament would bring in. The television rights alone would be staggering. Think how dominate CBS Sports would be with the March Madness, The Masters, and a NCAA Football Championship. Wow, that would be huge. Ticket sales would be ridiculous, and any city that the game was held in would be like that city hitting the lottery. I would even be okay if the National Championship Game was moved around like it is for the Basketball Tourney.
While not being about overall money, it is about some powerhouse school like USC or
I have also heard it is too hard on the players. What? Too hard? This is football… these kids are supposed to be in the best shape of their lives. They are the best of the best. If the players from the
Listen folks, change is a pain in the rear, most people fear the unknown. I know that I would fear it as well, if it could possibly take millions of dollars out of my schools pocket. The presidents of the schools have to realize that it needs to happen. It is the right thing to do for college football. I think that eventually it will happen, and when it does… I bet we will hear, "We should have done this years ago, why did we wait so long."
I am off of the soap box; I will relinquish it back to WEA now.
War Damn Playoff!!
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
68?
I would never want to see a tournament like this in football. The hype and hoopla surrounding the NCAA tournament has absolutely destroyed the NCAA regular season, which in turn has hurt the tournament. This tournament was boring, and it’s not because the basketball was bad (though it was that, to some extent). It was because the regular season absolutely failed to generate any buildup for the tournament. And that’s because everyone just waits for the tournament, which is the only thing that really matters. But then once they get to the tournament, the fans can’t get into it because they don’t know anything about the teams. Then the fans say they didn’t watch as much this year because it was boring. They’re bored because they don’t know anything about the sport anymore because they stopped paying attention to the regular season.
College basketball is going to start reforming how it does business. The tournament has gotten too big for its use. In order to keep interest, the NCAA is going to have to figure out how to inject life into its regular season. And amidst all that, some people still want to convert college football into a replica of college basketball. Well, sorry to say it but doing that would do exactly what it’s done to college basketball: hurt its regular season, which will ultimately hurt the sport as a whole. You don’t have to look far to see the result. College basketball has shown it to us. The tournament is a huge event, but the NCAA has traded an entire 4 month regular season for a 4-weekend blowout. Now people are finally sitting up and noticing what they had to give up in order to get this party and they see they need to take a step back.
Richard Pittman
Typo
Thanks for the help… it used to say 68, it was supposed to say 65.
If you are a War Damn Eagle, you can War Damn anything.
Right on Richard!
The biggest problem with a large all encompassing tourney is that it cannibalizes the regular season.
Having a small 4-8 team tourney to reward a very good season and determine a national champ would not do damage to a great regular season like what a larger tourney would do.
I have to disagree
The reason that the basketball tourney has taken away from the season is because it is so big that teams just try not to lose too many games during the season. Making a lose not so bad. Which in turn makes fans not worry about seeing certain games or keep up with the entire nation until the tourney arrives. But if the tourney only allowed say 16 teams or 32 at most then people would worry alot more about wins and loses during the season.
If Div 1 college football created a tourny that included only 8 teams (16 at most, which maybe too many) then the season would still be very interesting. Especially if only the top 8 teams or major conference champions were allowed into the tourney. That would keep the regular season very interesting. Then 1 lose in the SEC wouldn’t kill a team. Then 3 or 4 undefeated teams could still have a chance to play for the championship not allowing voters to choose who is the best 2 in their eyes. Just as long as the tourney doesn’t get too big then the regular season would still be very important.
As far as the other teams outside the 8 team tourney goes, They would still have various bowl games. It would be an NIT for the teams that didnt make the tourney championship.
It would end all the “Who’s the true champion” talk. No more of this love fest for an undefeated USC or the undefeated Big 10(11) teams getting an automatic bid for the championship game. They would still have to beat the best teams out there to get there. It would take the power away from the voters and put it into the hands of the teams on the field of battle. Sure the voters would have to be the ones to rank the 8 teams going into the tourney but it would be easier to get 8 teams right than just 2 teams.
You say that its too hard on the players….. Why don’t we just ask them what they would want. If they would like to be involved in an 8 team tourney if it meant a chance to play for the championship. I’m fairly sure that they would want to play in it everytime over a single bowl game that ended their season.
I say its a trajedy that the players who work hard all year long only to put their hearts, minds, and bodies on the line during the season, then have a great season, going undefeated or losing only one game but are left out of the championship game because voters didnt think that they did as much as the 2 teams that get to go. And sure someones gonna get left out but like i said it is easier to get 8 teams right than just 2. Thats why i say 6 conference champions and 2 at large. I would even go as far to say the 6 conference champions and 4 wildcards to play for the last 2 spots the weekend before the toruney starts. No way does that make the season any less important. Teams and fans would pour out in droves to ensure that they made the tourney.
Thats just how i see it atleast.
That's the problem with a tournament
Inherently the powers to be will learn just as the NCAA Basketball Tournament commands a huge premium from CBS for broadcasting rights, that an expanded NCAA FBS Tournament would also command a huge premium in excess of what the BCS already commands. And then you run into your problem of average teams being rewarded for sticking around and making the playoffs rather than the true top teams battling it out on the field.
I am inherently against a playoff against a college football for one large reason: The NFL’s playoff system. The NY Giants in 2007 were considered the “best” team in the the NFL because they got hot for a four week stretch. Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me the Giants were better than the Patriots that year if you look at the season as a whole?
The thing I love about college football is that we attempt to determine the best team over an entire season. Not the team that got hot and won a handful of games in January.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
There again.....
In the NFL the playoffs are for what, 8 teams….. out of 32. In college it would be 8 teams out of 119. You would only have the best teams in the playoff. TCU probably wouldn’t make the NCAA football playoff system. So the smaller teams wouldn’t be “sticking around” and making the playoffs. It would only be those true top teams playing in it.
And like i said. Its not as though the bowl games would desolve. They would still be in full play for all but the top 8 teams in the nation. And sorry to say but i doubt that Middle Tennesse St. would be in the top 8 in the nation.
The NY Giants in 2007 were considered the "best" team in the the NFL because they got hot for a four week stretch. Can you honestly look me in the eye and tell me the Giants were better than the Patriots that year if you look at the season as a whole?
Preach ON!
Where is it written that a playoff is needed to crown a champion? Playoffs reward teams who get hot late. College football rewards a team’s body of work. There is no RIGHT answer. I like the fact that the NFL has a playoff. I also like the fact that college football doesn’t.
Auburn's 2004 body of work was not properly rewarded
Neither was Utah’s 2004 or 2008 body of work.
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
And to answer your question
Yes, i do believe that NY was the best team in the NFL when they won the title. If not then they wouldn’t have won.
Giants, Patriots series in 2007
1-1…
Sounds like we need a one game playoff to determine the true champion to me.
Not only that....
But what happens if you get three teams or four teams undefeated? Why is it up to computers or analysis who don’t get to watch every single game played by every single team to choose who THEY think is the best 2 teams?
Why is it up to polls and computers?
Because the NCAA doesn’t regulate the talent level or the schedules of football teams. So you can’t judge a team by their record. How would you suggest we rank teams?
Don't mind to much about how they are currently ranked
Its just how they rank the top 2 teams. Its so hard to judge how much of a difference there is between the top 5 or 6 teams that i feel as though they should all have a chance to play for a CHAMPIONSHIP.
The only time this has been a problem was 2004.
Every other year we’ve had 1 or 2 loss teams complaining. They could have done something about it. They could have won all of their games. That’s the system!
In 2004 3 teams did everything they could do and for one of those teams it wasn’t enough. That sucks.
Yeah...
But it just proves that it can happen and really doesn’t have to be a rare event. Considering that the BCS has only been around for 10 years now. Plus what happens if you’ve got 3 or 4 that only lose one. and those one loses came to good teams. How do you chose then. Just saying that “it sucks” isn’t good enough. Your are talking about alot of money here and alot of prestige when your talking about a BCS championship. Money to the UNiversity and conference and alot of prestige to the teams involved. Which in the coming years pays off big time. As an LSU fan you should realize that. Look at the jolt that ya’ll got after that 1st BCS championship.
NOt only that but....
What happens if undefeated teams from the PAC 10 and BIG 10(11) are put in over 1 lose teams from the SEC or BIG12? Granted those 2 teams lost a game but they also play much more difficult conference schedules. Either of those 2 teams could and probably are better than the 2 undefeated teams that got into the big game. But they were left out because of the current model. Is that fair? Is that right? Is the winner the best team in the nation? Probably not.
You're assuming one champion
I am very much in favor of split national championships. I don’t see what’s wrong with it. As far as I’m concerned there were three national champions last year (Florida, Texas, and Utah). You can certainly argue which one of those three may be more deserving, but I don’t think a strong argument could be made as to how one of those three was not deserving.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I agree that each one had an argument but..
Why have a CHAMPION if there are 3 of you? The word loses meaning if there is more than one CHAMPION. If thats the case then you say that those are the best teams in the nation at the end of the year and you simply abolish the NC altogether. Which i’m in favor of too.
Didn't you just make Richard's point?
How many non-Auburn football games did you watch last year? How many non-Auburn basketball games did you watch last year?
Exactly. Well except for the fact that football is just better…
Not to many...
Which is my point. How many coaches get to watch every single game. Yet there is a coaches poll. Why do they get to choose? And are you really telling me that every writer for the AP watches every single game of every single team? No! Alot of them rely on ESPN. At that point you get into trouble because of preexsisting perceptions. “Well they’ve recruited the best athletes so they must be better than the other undefeated teams out there.” Thats Bullshit! And more than likely the reason that a 2 lose LSU team goes to the BCS championship.
LSU got the nod...
Because we had the best body of work. Nobody accomplished what we accomplished in 2003 of the other 1 loss teams, and nobody accomplished what we accomplished in 2007 of the other 2 loss teams. That facts show that LSU was an easy choice. The voting records reflect that. It wasn’t close.
That because....
Everyone believed the SEC to be the best conference in the nation. That isn’t going to always be the case. Strength of conferences changes all the time. A schools image is everything. For 2 years everyone thought that Ohio St.‘s image was that they deserved to be in the championship game, but they got their butts kicked both times. They didnt deserve to be there. I’m sure that we can all agree on that. All i’m saying is that a playoff would have thinned out those undeserving teams and placed the 2 best teams in the chmpionship.
And by the way....
That year Ga. was playing better ball at the end of the year than anyone (and that includes LSU). However they got left out of the SEC Championship because of an early lose and ya’ll got to play an, at the end of the year, terrible gimped up Tennesse team. Destroyed them and went to the BCS NC game. Trust me, Georgia would have not been as easy of a game for ya’ll. And hell Ole’ Miss could have beaten Ohio St. that year.
Eh
I wouldn’t discount what LSU did against Tennessee in that game. That was a 10 win Tennessee team that absolutely demolished Georgia in Knoxville earlier that year. 21-14 was the final score of that SEC Championship game and in my book that doesn’t exactly equal “Destroyed them”. If not for Eric Ainge going all Reggie Ball on us, Tennessee likely wins that game. However, I do agree that Georgia would not have been as easy as a game. Then again, I believe Georgia or USC would have absolutely destroyed whoever they played at that time of the year, but they lost earlier in the season, hence they had no say being a national champion although they were effectively the best teams in football at the time.
If there were a playoff in 2007 it could have very easily been won by Georgia or USC. Do you believe a team that lost by 21 points to Tennessee or the team that lost to a 41 point underdog (USC losing to Stanford that year) is worthy of being called a national champion just because they were hot at one point of the season and won a tournament?
That’s all my argument is. If you have a playoff with the inevitable expansion, early losses won’t matter as much because more teams will make the tournament. Once you start discounting parts of the season, that’s when you lose what makes college football different and special in its own way in that we are the only sport that I know of where the regular season matters even more than the championship game.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I get what your saying...
And i somewhat agree that it seems wrong to have put Ga. or USC into that championship game given their early loses. But the championship should be given to the Best Team in the Nation. And it truly isn’t doing that. A season is a FULL completion of work. Team chemistry is an important part of any team. Sometimes that chemistry takes time. At the end of those years Ga. and USC (which i’m still on the fence with simply because i didnt watch as much of them as i did of the SEC teams) were without a doubt the 2 best teams in the nation at the time of the championship. LSU lost to Arkansas during the last game of the year. Yet they still got the nod. While USC and Ga. were cleaning peoples clocks and got left by the curb. Yet LSU is crowned CHAMPION because they got to play in the BCS NC game and won. I’m Sorry but thats WRONG!
Haha
I see your challenge below. I think you can satisfy both our points with your argument above when you say:
“A season is a FULL completion of work”
I hate to keep harping on 2007 as the example, but if we’re going to reward Georgia and USC for being hot at the end of the year despite bad losses early in the year, then shouldn’t we apply the same logic to LSU who had a bad loss at the end of the year but absolutely demolished Virginia Tech 48-0 early in the season?
As much as it would have pleased my heart to see Georgia win everything that year, if you look at LSU’s season as a whole, it was still pretty damn impressive. If you’re defining a champion based on what they did as a whole, then you certainly can’t discount impressive early wins just because they had a hiccup near the end of the season.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
On that same note...
how can you discount Ga. for the hiccup @ tennesse. Remember LSU lost the last game against an unranked Arkansas in Baton Rogue. Where as Ga. lost early in Knoxville. But drilled Kentucky, whom beat LSU earlier in the year.
We can go round and round about this. And thats my point. How can you definitivley say that LSU deserved it over Ga. Other than they won the SEC. In which case i’d say that it doesn’t matter. Because Oklahoma set that presidence when they went to the big show yet didnt win their conference championship.
The system is flawed and the only way to fix it is with a playoff OR abolish the Crown altogether.
Yeah
We can definitely go round and round on this, but I didn’t discount the Georgia hiccup to Tennessee earlier. I made that point earlier that just because they were hot at year end doesn’t mean you could discount that.
I just think with the inherent expansion that will happen (there’s no way that presidents/ADs/conference commissioners) are going to leave millions of dollars on the table by keeping the playoff at eight teams) that you will end up discounting things like early season losses since the playoff field will be large enough to ignore those and eventually the regular season will lose all its value.
I don’t think there’s an easy solution, but to simply say a playoff solves everything is like throwing a band aid on a bullet wound.
The system right now works for me in that all you can control on the field is winning your conference. Ultimately that’s what matters are the conference championships. National championships hardly distinguish teams from one year to the next. I’ll never believe that 2003 LSU team or the 2006 and 2008 Florida teams were any better than the 2002 Georgia team just because they won national championships. All four teams had one loss, but the former three got the breaks while Georgia in 2002 didn’t.
We need to get around this notion that a national championship is what defines a great team, when really a national championship just defines really good team among other really good teams that got the timely breaks. So per your comment MNC (I prefer Mythical National Championship) is correct. But like I said, just all of a sudden creating a playoff doesn’t always determine who the best team over a course of a season is. I only believe that a playoff determines who was the best team in the month that the playoff was held.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
Yeah
I’ll agree that making it too big really changes everything in the season and at that point it will lose its zest, so to speak. And yes the conference championship is whats truly important to me, But the national perception is much different. And its that national perception that brings all the benefits of a NC. Money, Recruits, and Prestige.
And by the way, the 2004 Auburn Tigers were voted as being the best SEC team in the BCS era. Yet they never got a chance to show the nation.
I agree...
MNC’s are nice, and they’re made out to be everything, but let’s not discount the conference title, which is what gives you street cred to your peeps—especially now that in the SEC et al, it IS won on the field.
If the SEC teams quite winning the MNCs this century, then conference titles will be important again…
by War Eagle Atlanta on Apr 8, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Until then....
It will always be viewed as a “Mock” National Championship (MNC). Because it is awarded to the one that some “people with the power” THINK deserves. Rather than won on the field of battle.
Technically...
It’s Mythical, simply because it isn’t won on the field; i.e. from teams playing all possible contenders. With the exception of the top 2 now in the BCS CG.
by War Eagle Atlanta on Apr 8, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions
well yeah...
Your right. Mythical does sound better anyway. Thanks Atlanta… Not butt out because i want to be the right one here….hehe.
Oh, I'm completely with you on the coaches poll
I firmly believe preseason and coaches polls should be ended. There’s inherently too much of a conflict of interest with the coaches poll. Preseason polls just need to go away. There shouldn’t be any polls until at least 6 weeks in, IMO.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
No doubt...
I’m firmly with you on that one. Preseason polls are a joke. Its all about how well a team has recruited and played in their bowl game rather than their body of work.
Speaking of CHAMPIONSHIP
Why have a champion crowned every year if you don’t actually win the championship on the field against all the toughest teams. How can you be a champion if you don’t beat the best the nation has to offer? If you don’t want a playoff then we should do away with a championship crown and just go have “the body of work” tell us what bowl game you play in and against who. Just like it is now but without the championship crown.
Basketball
is boring because it’s boring, not because of any tournament…
I agree.....
College football NEEDS a playoff. 16 teams at least.
A plus one scenario is outright stupidity! That’s what is going to happen soon, mark my words.
The Bowl games will still be played, but as conference championships! Eurika?!?! Wow if I could think of that, why can’t someone who gets paid to think of it? Any Bowl committee that won’t fall in line gets left out the first year with ONE chance to redeem itself the very next year( see Rose Bowl )
It’s not too difficult, or dangerous for the young men playing the game. It still makes every game count. The BCS poll will still be relevant. We get what we have been asking for the last 12 years or so.
Playoff. Playoff. Playoff!
Damn
I feel like i’ve got a bat at the all-star home-run challege and i’m just swinging at everthing thrown at me….Hehe.
Could we stop saying body of work?!?
Damn I think I’ve heard that phrase more times than I wanted to in my entire life. The NCAA selection committee for the tournament said it over and over again. In addition, so did all of the analysts. It’s like the new hot phrase right now and ESPN is using it for everything it seems to me. Yes, I realize this is really small, but could they use a thesaurus or something? There are more ways say that phrase other than simply “body of work.”
If you have a share of a national champion in a game like football it only proves that whatever system you’re using is somehow inherrently flawed. Now, in college football, there are no more ties (thank God). Someone has to lose the game, and someone has to win. It is decided on the field with the scoreboard saying who is the better team that day. If you have two teams that are considered the best, then something was never settled on the field at some point. Why have a championship if you’re going to split it up? That’s like taking a child and cutting in half and giving it to both parents.
In addition, a team that went undefeated and never got a chance to play in the championship also exemplifies a flawed championship system. In addition, what about one loss teams in a weaker conference with one loss teams in the SEC? Yet again, we must become subjective instead of objective. Football is a game in which the play on the field can always dictate who is the best. It is not like Ice Dancing or something with judges subjectively selecting who they like the best. Therefore, it should be decided on the field-period. No polls for six weeks. Eradicate the coaches’ poll as they’re going to corrupt the rating system. Next, create a 16 game playoff system to decide who is the best team. It’s not damned rocket science it’s football. Keep it simple stupid.
Good line:
“It is not like Ice Dancing or something”
by yellowhammer on Apr 9, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions
I'll return that soap box....
just let me know where you’re parked at A Day and I’ll get it to ya’ LOL……
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
