Feds to NCAA: Why no playoffs?

[Bear Pand]

I'd love a playoff for college football.

My point is NCAA basketball would be a joke if they let a computer decide the championship teams. March Madness is arguably the biggest collegiate sporting event in the world.

To declare a champ on the basis of how a team did against 10% of the teams in contention is a joke.

Top 8 BCS teams. 1-8 format. Lowest seed must face the highest seed in every following round.

To be fair, I think people overstate the amount of influence computers have on the BCS. It's 1/3 computer polls, 2/3 human. Even without computers a team like Boise wouldn't have made an 8 team field and would've been sitting behind 2 different 2-loss schools. I never understood how a system where humans have the majority of the say is constantly referred to as a system where "computers decide."

The people behind the human polls never catch heat for shitting on small schools it's always some mysterious "computers." Sad thing is even if the BCS goes away these human polls will still remain and likely influence who makes a tournament.

[KnightNoles]

I'd love a playoff for college football.

My point is NCAA basketball would be a joke if they let a computer decide the championship teams. March Madness is arguably the biggest collegiate sporting event in the world.

To declare a champ on the basis of how a team did against 10% of the teams in contention is a joke.

Top 8 BCS teams. 1-8 format. Lowest seed must face the highest seed in every following round.

The Tournament is the biggest collegiate event, and the it makes the NCAA about 90% of its money yearly!

[s@ppisgod]

i don't think that tcu is going to be very good now that dalton is gone. they should go back to being a more average team.

tcu did beat wisconsin, but it was a 1 off situation, not to mention an extremely close game. it could have gone either way, especially if the 2 pt conversion wasn't batted down

That's the thing. OSU made a name for themselves by BARELY beating the 2nd best the Big Ten had to offer too. Remember the year they beat the Canes in the NC as huge underdogs after narrowly avoiding upsets by Illinois and some other bum team. I do. Or Oregon-Cal this year? Or Auburn-Kentucky? If we're discrediting close wins, there's barely been 3 true NCs the last decade....
SAMSUNG-SGH-A887/A887UCIJ1 SHP/VPP/R5 NetFront/3.5 SMM-MMS/1.2.0 profile/MIDP-2.1 configuration/CLDC-1.1

[St. Francisco]

The NFL, there is a good debate and a leg to stand on. Look at the Packers profits over the past few years. Hell, just look at the difference between this past year and the year before that. If we leave things up to the players and courts, they'll turn the NFL into Major League Baseball.

It was written into the CBA that the owners were allowed to discontinue it. The NFLPA decertificated and went to the courts instead of negotiating.

Keep the Fed Govt out of sports. They have much better things to do.

1. The players have stated their willingness to give the owners the extra billion dollars if they can PROVE that they need that money. The owners turned over some bullshit papers which a third-part reviewer told the players was absolutely worthless in terms of judging if the owners truly need that extra money. Bottom line, the owners are making everyone believe that they're full of shit by refusing to turn over detailed financial documents. They don't need the extra money, they just want it.

2. I'll agree that the players were receiving too much of a cut in the former CBA, which is why the owners unanimously decided to opt out. But you're statement is incorrect. The players went to the table to negotiate, the owners tossed out several unfavorable deals that the players laughed at, and then the owners locked them out. AFTER they had been locked out, the players took the next necessary step: decertifying as a union so that they could pursue individual lawsuits against the NFL. The owners made the first move, not the players. Here, read this:

This lockout is about inequitable leverage.

If there is not a football season in 2011, the owners’ costs will drastically decrease.

The owners have negotiated TV deals that guarantee them revenues even if games are not played in the 2011 season.

The guaranteed television revenues that approach $4.5 billion, coupled with the elimination of $4.4 billion in player salaries and benefits during a lockout, could make a 2011 season without games profitable for the owners.

They are willing to sacrifice the sport of football in this country in order to have less cost, less work, and more revenue for themselves.

This lockout is about owners wanting more from players without justified reasons or restitution.

The owners have not been willing to give proof that they have taken a financial loss, therefore needing more money back from players.

NFL owners are adamant in their desire to reduce the share of league revenue set aside for player salaries by roughly 18 percent ($1 billion) beginning next year.

NFL owners want to increase the amount of games, therefore increasing each player’s risk of injury, but decreasing salaries.

-----------------------

We're in the middle of a cat-and-mouse game that will likely be decided on the June 3rd ruling from the appeals court. If they uphold the judge's decision that the lockout must end immediately, then the owners must resume operations. They will then go back to the bargaining table, where the players will have all of the bargaining chips in negotiating a new deal. If they reverse the judge's ruling, the owners will have all of the bargaining chips in negotiating a new deal, and will simply rest on their laurels until the players cave to every single one of their demands.

3. The government in sports is a necessary evil at this point to break a stalemate, and favor one side or the other so that negotiations can be productive. Without a lockout, the owners will ease their demands and agree to a new CBA. With a lockout, the players will be forced to give in to the NFL's demands and agree to a new CBA. Stop thinking about it as a sport, because it's also a business. The governments monitors these multi-billion dollar businesses to make sure that everything is conducted fairly. Microsoft's stranglehold was lessened by the government, and every merger between two companies is scrutinized. Funny that you don't hear people saying, "Doesn't the government have better things to do than look at the AT&T and T-Mobile merger? There are bigger priorities than my ability to make a phone call." The government is here to make sure big businesses keep it real. And that includes sports...because it IS a business. In fact, it's a business before it's a sport.

[Warner2BruceTD]

i don't think that tcu is going to be very good now that dalton is gone. they should go back to being a more average team.

tcu did beat wisconsin, but it was a 1 off situation, not to mention an extremely close game. it could have gone either way, especially if the 2 pt conversion wasn't batted down

Good point!

Other "1 off situations":

-Boise def. Oklahoma
-Boise def. Oregon
-Boise def. Virginia Tech
-Utah wins the Fiesta Bowl
-Two years ago, Boise & TCU defeat Cartel teams in BCS games (oh, sorry, this didn't happen because they were scheduled against each other, as the Cartel convieniently ran from them as usual).

I didn't quote your other post, but the idea that its the Boise's of the world scheduling garbage is laughable. Boise will play anyone, anywhere, and has proven it. Cartel schools won't play them, and honestly, why would they? Why risk a loss to Boise, when you can feast on the local MAC or DI-AA school with little risk?

You say these teams should join Cartel conferences, as if they can just walk in the room and say "hey guys, we're Louisiana Tech, we feel like joining the SEC, stick us on the sched! Thanks!".

If the Cartel wants to block everyone else, then those 6 leagues need to break off and seperate from the others. No more preseason fattening on the MAC and the SunBelt. Play each other, and only each other. Otherwise, invite them to the party. You can't have it both ways. Those school shouldn't exist to mearly beat up on and orginize what amounts to cheap scrimmages against. When one earns it (which a school like Boise clearly has with nearly a decade of beating up on the Cartel when given a chance), they should have a fair shot at a title. Not told "well, you don't play anybody" when nobody will play them. Play them in a tournament. What are you scared of if you claim they are so bad?

[KnightNoles]

I don't know if anyone has posted anything like this...

The article says that the BCS system actually costs the schools money, and since most of the schools involved in the BCS are public schools, that would mean ultimately it costs the taxpayers money.

so it is a government problem, thing, whatever you wanna call it

[Warner2BruceTD]

The BCS is a racket designed to protect the money of old white guys who run the Bowls.

People always think a playoff is just to benefit the non Cartel schools. Wrong. It would benefit teams that go undefeated in years when you have three unbeatens, or the one loss team that gets snubbed when you have one unbeaten and two one loss teams.

What the hell is so bad about seeing all of these teams play each other? What fan in their right mind would rather watch meaningless BCS games that are glorified exhibitions? Why protect bowl presidents?

[calgaryballer]

I don't mind a very short playoff format. How many more football games are we gonna require STUDENT athletes to play? If a playoff format creates maybe one extra game a year (two playoff levels) for students then I'm for it.

JUST KEEP THE COURTS AND FED GOVT. OUT OF SPORTS.

I am surprised no on addressed this. How the fuck are the student athletes in almost every other college sport different from D1 football players? The FCS champ (E Washington) played 15 games last year on its way through the Big Sky and then the FOUR ROUND playoff system. Somehow poor little Alabama plays 13, but has no more room for even an extra week of semi finals. And if recall correctly, the NCAA added a week extra of games a couple years ago, but most teams choose to fill that with another cupcake.

Or how about the NCAA BBall Tourney? UConn played 41 game last year, and then spent most of March in places like Washington, Anaheim and Houston. Yup, they must be really worried about keeping those kids in class when they send them across the country for Thursday/Saturday games.

The BCS can't have it both ways. They already disrupt kids lives to do it, but for 99% of those kids, the only end goal is a trip to Boise to play on Blue Turf. Thrilling. Let them even it out and prove who the best on the field is

[bucky]

Calgary,

Basketball is not football. Basketball doesn't take the same toll to your body. Basketball you can play back to back games. Basketball can have a deeper tournament.

College Football, I would like a playoff, but not a NCAA Basketball playoff. If you have a 4 team playoff that's one extra game those teams have to play (minus the bowl they would have been in). If you have an 8 team playoff, that's two extra games these kids have to play. They are STUDENT athletes that already spend a lot of there time to football. I wouldn't want to go ANY deeper than 8 teams.

Like Pand, I just don't want the FED GOVT. involved in sports. For some reason, others are having a hissy that I don't want them involved.

[bucky]

Without a lockout, the owners will ease their demands and agree to a new CBA. With a lockout, the players will be forced to give in to the NFL's demands and agree to a new CBA.

I'm just gonna stop you right here. You're obviously pro player and anti owner. Just by your wording. Really? Players have NO demands? The owners will ease their demands, the players will be forced to give?

The owners are trying to get more control over the companies that they OWN. You act as if the players own the NFL teams. But this is for another thread, so you can have the last word about this. I'm done hijacking here.

[Berowsk]

College football needs a unique playoff set-up to introduce balance to the system. Adding every conference champ (like you would in the NFL/NBA/MLB) doesn't work, because those sports have far more balanced divisions and schedules, while the biggest problem in college football is the lack of competitive balance from one school to another. As such, the BCS rankings (or perhaps a revised system) should still be used to determine the top eight seeds, and form a playoff from them. It's all about taking the best teams in college football, and having them duke it out.

People forget that people will complain if the 8th seed is say Florida, with 2 losses, and they get in over number 9 Utah State with 1 loss. Now you're just gonna hear the same shit, but it'll be 8 spots back, instead.

[FirstTimer]

The only reason teams refuse to play them is they wait until the top teams have their OOC schedules set and have no room to play them. Its just complete ignorance to think that teams are afraid to play them lol.

I never said they were scared.



Show me where I said that or learn to read.

The big teams don't play Boise and TCU etc for pretty simples reasons: money, and it's a lose lose proposition for them. If they win they don't get a big bump because they were "supposed" to beat them. If they lose to them its an embrassment and and early season loss when they could have been playing FCS-West at home and not losing money.

Boise has repeatedly try to schedule top teams but have been rebuked because those teams don't want to play home-home series with Boise. They want one time games at "neutral" sites that just happen to be very close regionally to them or want one game series at their home field.

I also like how your argument has shifted now from "Boise doesn't play anyone"(Even though they beat big times schools pretty regularly when they play them...and now it's Boise doesn't try hard enough to schedule big time programs.

What hell hole site did you get spammed in from?

TGL?

[Warner2BruceTD]

People forget that people will complain if the 8th seed is say Florida, with 2 losses, and they get in over number 9 Utah State with 1 loss. Now you're just gonna hear the same shit, but it'll be 8 spots back, instead.

Wouldn't you rather see the 8th or 9th best team get snubbed, as opposed to the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd best team?

Just like hoops, everyone cries for two days about the bubble teams, but once the games start, nobody cares anymore.

The only reason teams refuse to play them is they wait until the top teams have their OOC schedules set and have no room to play them.

This type of bullshit won't fly around these parts, guy.

Boise has a well known policy of "anyone, anywhere". But again, why should the Cartel teams play them? There is nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Now,, with a playoff format, SOS might actually mean something, so you would see teams schedule tougher games. As it stands now, the goal is to tip toe undefeated and pray for only one other unbeaten.

[bucky]

Now,, with a playoff format, SOS might actually mean something, so you would see teams schedule tougher games.

Curious, why would a playoff make SOS mean anything? A school would still need to get selected into the tournament, like they do now into the Champ game. Schools would still pad there schedule in order to get into the tournament. I mean, it's not like it makes sense to have a 64 or 32 team College Football playoff. I think we are talking more like a 4 team, or MAYBE an 8 team playoff.

So how do you see this making any kind of a difference to SOS? Not saying you're wrong. Just curious, and just asking.

[Warner2BruceTD]

First off, the argument you say I shifted on is more or less the exact same argument I am making. They don't play anyone and they damn sure don't try hard enough. They wait until the big teams have their 4 OOC's schedule then go out raising hell because no big team will play them. Yet they try to keep it quiet and ignore it when they basically tell Idaho that they are too good to continue the rivalry they built with them. Basically doing what they complain that other teams do to them.

No one wants to even talk about the rules violations they have committed and imposing recruiting and practice penalties on themselves. Its all about how when they ask a team that already has a deal with other teams that they must reject it. Maybe instead of making matches with Washington and Washington state 5 years down the road they could start thinking ahead and trying to schedule USC, Texas, etc.

Also to your argument, why would a team like Alabama play them? Yes it doesn't benefit them but really? THey fucking play 8 games a year that are infinitely more difficult than any 1 game Boise plays in a year. Why schedule another tough game if Boise can run 13-0 and get a trip to January by playing glorified high school teams. They already have enough games. Maybe instead of bitching at the top teams bitch at Boise administration who jumped to MWC instead of trying to get into the Pac 12 or the Big 12 or something where they would actually see their share of tough games. Now they are basically in a slightly larger WAC after this season.

There is so much made of a couple of wins by Boise and TCU but what about when that other WAC team was lighting up the scoreboards and UGA made it look like they were an NFL team playing a middle school football team?

Its not remotely right that there is an argument that an undefeated TCU or Boise thats toughest out of conference lost to an FCS Team should play for National title over teams that can run a Big 12 South or SEC schedule with even 1 or 2 losses.

wasn't spammed in here for what its worth, even though I really don't think I owe you any explanation for myself.

So you don't think there is something inherently wrong with a system where the majority of teams have no chance to win a title before the season ever begins? You have no issue with a sport that features the only schedule where the games mean LESS the further you get into the season, finishing off with a postseason of 100% meaningless games (excluding one fucking game)?

I don't think anybody is saying an unbeaten Boise or Hawaii or TCU or whoever should automatically have a shot at a national title. What we are saying, is the 4 or 8 or 10 or whatever number of best teams should decide things in a playoff, instead of the absurd arbitrary method of choosing two teams.

All a playoff would do is increase excitement and increase the importance of a shitload more games, while giving EVERYONE a shot at winning the title. But yeah, why would we want that? Sounds shitty.