Jump to content

2011NCAA Football Thread


Gary

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Only thing I'd like to figure out is do conference champs get higher seed over at-large even if ranked lower. So what I did here is take the released rankings, AP/Coaches, and took the 8 teams and all conference champions ranked in top 8 get higher seeds. If they're outside the top 8, then any at-large ranked higher gets higher seed.

So, using Infrared's system and teams, here's how I'd go:

First Round (Dec. 9-10)

1. LSU vs 8. TCU (at LSU)

4. Alabama vs 5. Stanford (at Alabama)

3. Oregon vs 6. Wisconsin (at Oregon)

2. Oklahoma State vs 7. Clemson (at Ok. State)

Theoretical Second Round (Dec. 16 and/or 17)

1. LSU vs 4. Alabama (at LSU)

2. Oklahoma State vs 3. Oregon (at Ok. State)

(LSU, Oklahoma State and Oregon are all conference champs ranked inside top 8. Since Wisconsin, Clemson and TCU are not, Alabama and Stanford get higher seeds for having been ranked higher. It could be moved to inside top 10, which would bump up Wisconsin, but I just went with top 8 for now.)

NCG would be LSU vs Oklahoma State, and then the BCS bowls would select from Oregon, Alabama, Stanford, Wisconsin, Clemson and TCU. They could go with conference tie-ins first or simply first choice. One more BCS bowl game would exist and could take choice of "last 2" teams not in playoffs, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are the exact same conferences okay with a playoff in literally every other college sport?

Because the NCAA controls all the other sports. The NCAA has never sanctioned an official championship for Division I-A football.

Hence why every conference champion is included in the other sports' championship tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what happens to every single team out there except the 2 in the NCG. The Bowl games are beyond :censored:ing useless.

And it allows those bowls to have a bowl "Champion", rather than just a winner who went onto another bowl. I'm sure they'd rather take one of only 8 teams to make the playoffs over being just a stop along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, choosing teams that have already been eliminated from the playoffs kind of takes away some meaning from the bowls. It's like playing the 7th place game at an AAU tournament, youre playing just to play

Isn't that basically the same thing as inviting 6-6 teams to bowls?

When was the last time a 6-6 team made the BCS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like all of the extra other bowls exist just so we can bet on them.

It provides an economic boost to many cities, gives something for the fans to look forward and celebrate, adds program exposure for recruiting, and brings more money into programs/conferences.

It is also more football for all fans to enjoy. What is not to like about bowl games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, choosing teams that have already been eliminated from the playoffs kind of takes away some meaning from the bowls. It's like playing the 7th place game at an AAU tournament, youre playing just to play

Isn't that basically the same thing as inviting 6-6 teams to bowls?

When was the last time a 6-6 team made the BCS?

Exactly. A bunch of mediocre teams with no prayer at the BCS doesn't somehow add special "meaning" to the crappier bowls.

xLmjWVv.png

POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. In 12 hours, we have gone from talk about the current college football season to posts on hypothetical BCS projections (most of which had little concept of the rules on BCS eligibility and guarantees) to now the "Pointless and Personal NCAA Playoff/BCS Projections" based on this season. Again, pointless for THIS season.

Meanwhile the coaches are still going to go very fast:

FAU hires Carl Pelini (Nebraska DC)

UAB hires Garrick McGee (Arkansas OC)

ASU meets with June Jones (SMU HC)

Ole Miss wants Hugh Freeze (Arkansas St.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, choosing teams that have already been eliminated from the playoffs kind of takes away some meaning from the bowls. It's like playing the 7th place game at an AAU tournament, youre playing just to play

Isn't that basically the same thing as inviting 6-6 teams to bowls?

When was the last time a 6-6 team made the BCS?

Exactly. A bunch of mediocre teams with no prayer at the BCS doesn't somehow add special "meaning" to the crappier bowls.

But we're not talking about the smaller bowl games. Do you think you'd see teams with roses in their mouths after losing in the playoffs? Playing a game after being eliminated from the playoffs is playing just to be playing

edit: And before you say "well isnt every bowl except the NCG meaningless then" no becasue when you're playing in the Pac 12 championship or Big Ten championship, the Rose Bowl is the prize (in most cases) so that is what you're playing for. If you're in the playoffs, the championship is what you're playing for. When you fail to meet that goal, any game fter is playing just to be playing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why are the exact same conferences okay with a playoff in literally every other college sport?

Because the NCAA controls all the other sports.

Have the big conferences ever tried to legally get control of the other sports like they have with football? I'm genuinely curious.

You should have had that answer ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say you have a playoff system where these minor bowls are used as first-round or second-round games. You'd think the folks who run those Who Cares Bowls would rather have games that actually mean something than what is going on now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.