NCAA approves 3 year moratorium on new bowls

[cm husker]

Actually thought of that movie as an example, watched it the other day. Geeat film.

But it provides a truth. Bowls were once special, they aren't nearly as special anymore.

They are still quite special to the players who get into one.

But I get it... The reflected glory shines a little less brightly and that's painful for some.

 

[Redux]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

Yikes. What a bizarre leap.

Not really. How else do we actually reward to top deserving teams if everybody goes bowling?

 

[cm husker]

You are seriously using the argument that players have to play more games dur to the playoff AFTER you asked who more bowl games hurt? Well, I guess it hurts the player if you use that logic.

Were you a fan of the BCS??

The BCS got it right far more often than not. And I think was overly maligned. I liked the old bowl system, and liked that the BCS eliminated some tie ins. I would have, at most, gone to a "+1 if necessary" format.

As to the total count, 14 games is too many. Personally, I think it should be limited to 12 total games, but people won't give up those dollars.

Obviously adding bowl games has nothing to do with those teams playing more games than anyone else. So mine is not an inconsistent position.

 

[cm husker]

If we are gravitating toward everyone getting a bowl, the playoff needs to expand to at least 8 or 16. Then every 5-7 or worse team can have their glorious Tampax Bowl participation trophy and the top teams can actually be rewarded.

Yikes. What a bizarre leap.

Not really. How else do we actually reward to top deserving teams if everybody goes bowling?

I don't accept that a greater reward is necessary. Going to the orange bowl rather than the Detroit based bowl is reward and incentive enough.

Expanding the playoff would be disastrous to the brand of college football. Not to mention very difficult on a program like Nebraska's.

 

[Redux]

You think the BCS was a good system, more bowls don't dillute the product but expanding the playoff does, and top teams should have enough incentive.

Yikes. We should probably just stop conversing here.

 

[cm husker]

I think the BCS wasn't as bad as claimed by those who had a serious financial interest in a playoff and fans who love excitement of a playoff. I don't think it was any worse of a way to actually identify the best team, which is who should be crowned national champion; not the team that gets hot at the right time.

If the BCS was so bad, how is the playoff committee better? Look back at the list of NC winners. Almost 100% of the time the deserving team won the NC, even if some invitees to other BCS bowls were debatable.

If you don't get why an 8 or 16 team playoff wouldn't ruin the drama of the regular season, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no similar concern with respect to adding some bowls.

 

[zoogs]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated. I'd love a 16-team playoff. There'll be plenty of drama as teams jockey for position, and plenty of close calls. Many teams would still be in a will-they-or-won't-they-blow-it state on a week to week basis. Any tension lost will be offset by the beautiful drama of a knockout playoff.

I also just don't see the harm in adding more bowls. It feels like fans of average team wanting to deny anyone in lesser position nice things, in the name of protecting the sanctity of the still meaningless bowl their unranked, 5th-place-in-conference team gets to play against another unranked team in December.

What's so sacred about that, and how does a few more or even a lot more bowls threaten the order?

 

[Redux]

I think the BCS wasn't as bad as claimed by those who had a serious financial interest in a playoff and fans who love excitement of a playoff. I don't think it was any worse of a way to actually identify the best team, which is who should be crowned national champion; not the team that gets hot at the right time.

If the BCS was so bad, how is the playoff committee better? Look back at the list of NC winners. Almost 100% of the time the deserving team won the NC, even if some invitees to other BCS bowls were debatable.

If you don't get why an 8 or 16 team playoff wouldn't ruin the drama of the regular season, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no similar concern with respect to adding some bowls.

The BCS was a corrupt piece of sh#t that sent the wrong team to the title game almost half the time. Seriously, take any bias you have out of the equation and read "Death to the BCS". You won't walk away still thinking it was a good system that got it right.

Yeah, 8 or 16 teams makes it SUPER hard for a Nebraska to win. Take the bias out now, here is how it should be:

8 teams (5 conference champions, 1 mid major chanp, two at large that could also be mid major champs). Reduce the regular season to 11 games and a conference title game. Then we can have all the unwatchable bowls of 1-11 vs 0-12 we want. The top 16 or so teams in the country get to earn it and play for it via conference title games and playoff games. THAT makes post season play special. THAT seperates teams on a different tier of success that season. THAT would be largely profitable for universities and ESPN.

The BCS was a friggin joke. Computers and corrupt politicians selected who should play for the title. The current playoff isn't perfect, but it's a start.

 

[cm husker]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated. I'd love a 16-team playoff. There'll be plenty of drama as teams jockey for position, and plenty of close calls. Many teams would still be in a will-they-or-won't-they-blow-it state on a week to week basis. Any tension lost will be offset by the beautiful drama of a knockout playoff.

I also just don't see the harm in adding more bowls. It feels like fans of average team wanting to deny anyone in lesser position nice things, in the name of protecting the sanctity of the still meaningless bowl their unranked, 5th-place-in-conference team gets to play against another unranked team in December.

What's so sacred about that, and how does a few more or even a lot more bowls threaten the order?

Only way to expand the playoff without going to a 16 game season for the championship is to either cut down everyone's regular season (not happening) or reorganize the conferences and get rid of (or include as playoff game) the conf championship game.

College players should not be playing 14-16 games on the regular. No matter how much moneyed interests and clamoring fans call for it.

 

[Redux]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated. I'd love a 16-team playoff. There'll be plenty of drama as teams jockey for position, and plenty of close calls. Many teams would still be in a will-they-or-won't-they-blow-it state on a week to week basis. Any tension lost will be offset by the beautiful drama of a knockout playoff.

I also just don't see the harm in adding more bowls. It feels like fans of average team wanting to deny anyone in lesser position nice things, in the name of protecting the sanctity of the still meaningless bowl their unranked, 5th-place-in-conference team gets to play against another unranked team in December.

What's so sacred about that, and how does a few more or even a lot more bowls threaten the order?

Only way to expand the playoff without going to a 16 game season for the championship is to either cut down everyone's regular season (not happening) or reorganize the conferences and get rid of (or include as playoff game) the conf championship game.

College players should not be playing 14-16 games on the regular. No matter how much moneyed interests and clamoring fans call for it.

But 13 games is okay?

 

[cm husker]

I think the BCS wasn't as bad as claimed by those who had a serious financial interest in a playoff and fans who love excitement of a playoff. I don't think it was any worse of a way to actually identify the best team, which is who should be crowned national champion; not the team that gets hot at the right time.

If the BCS was so bad, how is the playoff committee better? Look back at the list of NC winners. Almost 100% of the time the deserving team won the NC, even if some invitees to other BCS bowls were debatable.

If you don't get why an 8 or 16 team playoff wouldn't ruin the drama of the regular season, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no similar concern with respect to adding some bowls.

The BCS was a corrupt piece of sh#t that sent the wrong team to the title game almost half the time. Seriously, take any bias you have out of the equation and read "Death to the BCS". You won't walk away still thinking it was a good system that got it right.
Yeah, 8 or 16 teams makes it SUPER hard for a Nebraska to win. Take the bias out now, here is how it should be:

8 teams (5 conference champions, 1 mid major chanp, two at large that could also be mid major champs). Reduce the regular season to 11 games and a conference title game. Then we can have all the unwatchable bowls of 1-11 vs 0-12 we want. The top 16 or so teams in the country get to earn it and play for it via conference title games and playoff games. THAT makes post season play special. THAT seperates teams on a different tier of success that season. THAT would be largely profitable for universities and ESPN.

The BCS was a friggin joke. Computers and corrupt politicians selected who should play for the title. The current playoff isn't perfect, but it's a start.

Please list the teams that should not have won the BCS title. And for each of those, identify which team should have.

Who do you think selects the playoff now? I'm trying to follow one thing though, do you think it should be an 8 team playoff, or 16?

Realistically, I don't see teams accepting going to an 11 game season.

Personally, if this is really want people must have, I'd reorganize the conferences by region so there were 8 super conferences of 12 teams (drop some 30 teams from D1A) and they wouldn't play any out of conference games during a season. Winners of the conferences go to the playoffs.

But do we really want to see that sort of reorganization and downsizing of D1? I don't. That's a lot of opportunities via scholarships erased. Far too often to we lose sight on what should be the focus of college athletics: a vehicle for student athletes to better their situations.

And I like the early season cross conference matchups.

 

[cm husker]

I think the tension of the regular season is overrated. I'd love a 16-team playoff. There'll be plenty of drama as teams jockey for position, and plenty of close calls. Many teams would still be in a will-they-or-won't-they-blow-it state on a week to week basis. Any tension lost will be offset by the beautiful drama of a knockout playoff.

I also just don't see the harm in adding more bowls. It feels like fans of average team wanting to deny anyone in lesser position nice things, in the name of protecting the sanctity of the still meaningless bowl their unranked, 5th-place-in-conference team gets to play against another unranked team in December.

What's so sacred about that, and how does a few more or even a lot more bowls threaten the order?

Only way to expand the playoff without going to a 16 game season for the championship is to either cut down everyone's regular season (not happening) or reorganize the conferences and get rid of (or include as playoff game) the conf championship game. College players should not be playing 14-16 games on the regular. No matter how much moneyed interests and clamoring fans call for it.

But 13 games is okay?

I'd like it to be 12, but I think that ship has sailed.

 

[Redux]

I think the BCS wasn't as bad as claimed by those who had a serious financial interest in a playoff and fans who love excitement of a playoff. I don't think it was any worse of a way to actually identify the best team, which is who should be crowned national champion; not the team that gets hot at the right time.

If the BCS was so bad, how is the playoff committee better? Look back at the list of NC winners. Almost 100% of the time the deserving team won the NC, even if some invitees to other BCS bowls were debatable.

If you don't get why an 8 or 16 team playoff wouldn't ruin the drama of the regular season, then I don't know what to tell you. There's no similar concern with respect to adding some bowls.

The BCS was a corrupt piece of sh#t that sent the wrong team to the title game almost half the time. Seriously, take any bias you have out of the equation and read "Death to the BCS". You won't walk away still thinking it was a good system that got it right.Yeah, 8 or 16 teams makes it SUPER hard for a Nebraska to win. Take the bias out now, here is how it should be:

8 teams (5 conference champions, 1 mid major chanp, two at large that could also be mid major champs). Reduce the regular season to 11 games and a conference title game. Then we can have all the unwatchable bowls of 1-11 vs 0-12 we want. The top 16 or so teams in the country get to earn it and play for it via conference title games and playoff games. THAT makes post season play special. THAT seperates teams on a different tier of success that season. THAT would be largely profitable for universities and ESPN.

The BCS was a friggin joke. Computers and corrupt politicians selected who should play for the title. The current playoff isn't perfect, but it's a start.

Please list the teams that should not have won the BCS title. And for each of those, identify which team should have.

Who do you think selects the playoff now? I'm trying to follow one thing though, do you think it should be an 8 team playoff, or 16?

Realistically, I don't see teams accepting going to an 11 game season.

Personally, if this is really want people must have, I'd reorganize the conferences by region so there were 8 super conferences of 12 teams (drop some 30 teams from D1A) and they wouldn't play any out of conference games during a season. Winners of the conferences go to the playoffs.

But do we really want to see that sort of reorganization and downsizing of D1? I don't. That's a lot of opportunities via scholarships erased. Far too often to we lose sight on what should be the focus of college athletics: a vehicle for student athletes to better their situations.

And I like the early season cross conference matchups.

1) I'm not going through that hassle, but off the top of my head: Oklahoma State got robbed in favor of division loser Alabama. Nebraska lost it's conference and played in title game, Oklahoma too. Neither undefeated BSU or TCU got to play for it and instead had to play eachother. Look at any given year of the BCS and you cand find major flaws.

2) Former coaches, writers etc. Not friggin computers that don't watch the game, that is assinine. Personally I think 8 is the right number.

3) They wouldn't.

4) 0 chance of that happening. Much easier to play 9 or 10 conference games a season in conferences built of 16 or so teams plus a cupcake and a marquee OOC opponent.

 

[cm husker]

1) that wasn't at all responsive to my very specific question.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

We should be making the postseason work FOR us, rather than millionaire bowl commissioners. If the "bowl" sites had to bid for the privelige of hosting the games, with the participants taking the profits, that would make more sense to me.

Or, for the lower profile match ups, let one of the teams host it. Better attendance, better atmosphere, better $$$$$$