|
Post by SportsFan508 on Jul 29, 2007 22:33:26 GMT -5
There has been talk of a possible playoff bracket for College Football in the future. This is would make teams have to earn a spot in the National Champion rather than having your hopes of being national champs be in the hands of writers. Some teams could have a better record and still be a lower ranking that someone with a worse record. Do you like the normal setup of the College Football postseason or should there be a new process? Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by malkin on Aug 1, 2007 23:20:30 GMT -5
personally, i think that the bracket setup would be a good idea. earning is better than just having it handed to you by the writers. it's better to know how it feels to earn something, rather than having it handed to you because it will mean more, and you'll feel better about yourself. earning a spot in the championship game requires hard work, and getting picked by the writers may make it seem like things will always be that way, but in actuality, they won't. now don't get me wrong. i'm not saying that the teams the writers pick don't work hard, or may not deserve to be in a title game, i just think earning it means more.
plus, i'm sure how a writer feels about a certain player and/or team will be a factor in their voting, which can easily make or break a teams chances of making it to a bowl game. because of that bias, a less deserving team may make it over a more deserving team. would that really be fair?
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 2, 2007 1:31:02 GMT -5
Alright.. I can get back in on the debates. First of all, let me say that the +1 thing the NCAA is currently discussing is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. (If you haven't heard about it, look it up. It's abut adding an additional game for the two top teams AFTER the BCS championship. IE- The Gators would play another team after they beat OSU). Anyway, the bracket idea can be a good one. But it would have to be just right. I'm not sure how exactly they'd work it. How many teams? Will their be first round byes like in the NFL? Etc. Lots of questions. I think a smaller bracket would be best. I think any top 10 undefeated teams should be involved. If there are only two, a playoff isn't necessary. If there are 5, take the top 6 teams and put them in (having the 2 ranked teams getting 1st round bye). If there are 3 undefeated, follow the same pattern. If there are none, however, then it becomes interesting. At that point, I think it should be the top ranked teams who have won their conference. If Tech wins the ACC, they'll face Florida, winner of the SEC. USC would face the winner of the Big 12 or whatever. I'm not sure. It's a complicated suggestion. But, I think with a few more seasons of the current method while they perfect the bracketing system, the NCAA would make college football fans much happier. The main reason the current system is hated is because no one thinks it's fair. Every year there are several teams who think they got cheated out of a Championship run. With a playoff system, they'll have no one to blame/thank but themselves. I think truly earning the title, and knowing you earned it is what makes the playoff idea intriguing and a better alternative to the current system. The only issue (besides the complexity of the creation of the bracketing system) is the length of the season. While players that go on to the NFL will have to adjust to a longer season anyway, a playoff system makes strong teams play more games. Leaving for a shorter offseason, etc. One possible answer (and this is reaching) is to have non-top 25 teams schedule one more game than top 25 teams Instead of twelve games, have teams less likely to make the 'playoffs' schedule another game. Have it be toward the end of the season (so as not to add to the length of the offseason). It's all fairly complicated, as I've said, but if the NCAA gets together and makes a job of creating this system, I certainly think a playoff system could be successful.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 2, 2007 22:06:50 GMT -5
A playoff system is best.
And how many teams? Not a problem. There are four major bowl games, correct? So make it an eight team playoff. Then the problem becomes, what about the ninth teams who gets left out? And to that, I laugh. It's the ninth place team. The reason there is so much controversy (see The Talker) in the past few years is because they leave out the THIRD best team. Not the ninth.
How to determine the rankings? Allow the top six teams to be voted on by humans. Toss #7 and #8 to the BCS.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 2, 2007 22:12:47 GMT -5
8 teams? I think that's too many. That adds 3 games to those 8 teams. That's 15, instead of the rest of the NCAA's 12. That makes for a short off season and far more fatigue. Not to mention the scheduling issues..
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 2, 2007 22:32:26 GMT -5
No...it adds three games to two of the teams. remember, four of the teams will only be adding an extra game. And I honestly don't think fatigure will be an issue. You schedule the first round for the middle of December. Second round on January 1st. National championship will be in the early-middle of January.
Four big bowl games = eight teams. I think it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 2, 2007 23:02:18 GMT -5
Oh.. you're right. It works. But two teams play 15 games? That's a big difference for college teams. I think it could work. I don't think there's anyone who really likes the BCS so.. it'd be hard to find an actual debate here.. ha.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 2, 2007 23:24:07 GMT -5
College prepares for college right? What better way to have compared Brady Quinn and JeMarcus Russell thean to put them in an NFL length regular season.
And it's easy to argue for the BCS. I'm sure someone will step up.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 4, 2007 15:34:56 GMT -5
I agree they need to prepare for the NFL, but it's not fair. Some players will be upset they're playing too long compared to the rest of the NCAA, while others will claim it's unfair that they don't get that extra play time and national exposure. I'm not sure how the NCAA will handle some teams getting more experience/TV time/money/etc. over others. It happens now, but that's only 1 game a year (in each bowl). In your situation, it would be vastly unfair for players on the National Championship team.. and even the team they beat.
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 4, 2007 21:08:11 GMT -5
Vastly unfair for teams? That's what it is now.
Somehow, I think most people were watching Ohio St and Florida last year more than the Alamo Bowl.
Fact is, creating a Playoff actually HELPS teams. It would allow for a team that would normally be left out of the National Championship game to play against a top team. So Boise St. could end up playing Florida. It would be perfect. Eight teams benefit.
And the rest? Same old thing. No problem.
|
|
|
Post by SportsFan508 on Aug 4, 2007 21:48:50 GMT -5
Not bad so far.
Geo: good arguments, but it sounds like you are debating both points because you think the way they should crown the champ is by a playoff system, but you still think they should vote. I agree with your point that it gives college players the chance to be able to play an NFL like schedule.
BWW: nice arguments as well. im not sure that too many players would complain about playing more games than the others because they are playing for the National Championship.
Malkin: good way to start off the debate. any further comments? Anybody else have any arguments?
|
|
|
Post by GEO's Backup Account on Aug 4, 2007 21:52:35 GMT -5
No matter what, they have to vote. It's not the NFL. You can't do it by straight records.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 5, 2007 0:58:23 GMT -5
yeah. i'm not really disagreeing with GEO. i'm just trying to 'discuss' i guess. trying to make this a debate.
playoffs certainly benefit teams. but what happens when the gators have to play 3 extra games, get all the way their, but then 3 of their players get hurt and end their future NFL hopes? If it was the voting system, they'd be national champs, probably wouldn't have gotten injured and would've been millionaires.
I think a shorter playoff would be more intense and would make more sense. I'm not really sure though. I know I'd prefer it. I know America would prefer it. But it's a difficult thing to work out.
|
|
|
Post by Master Shake on Aug 5, 2007 15:40:56 GMT -5
Sure, I think this wold be a good idea for NCAA Football, but it wont happen because of advertising. Most of the bowls are named after a certain product, and sports are all about money and advertisment. If the NCAA loses these endorsments, they lose the $$$
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on Aug 7, 2007 1:19:18 GMT -5
Are you kidding? The NCAA is endorsed by a TON of companies. If anything, companies will put more money on the line to sponsor a playoff game. It adds games to the season- thus adding sponsors. Plus, there are still bowls. A playoff system may change who plays in the bowls, but it doesn't take away the bowl. The top 4 (or 8 according to GEO) teams will play in a separately sponsored playoff games, while the Iowa's or Miami's or Florida States, who still have good records, play in the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl, etc. I think the contracts and agreements between the NCAA and tropicana, tostitos, etc. will play a factor in this because it may be difficult to time the system change. But, if any money is taken away with this system, it will be replaced and eventually multiplied..
|
|