Just as he did so perfectly last offseason, Jim Delany and the Big Ten are at it again.
The concept of the Big Ten even entertaining playoff proposals seemed laughable as recently as two months ago. But in the wake of a low-rated BCS title game that satisfied few outside the Southeastern Conference footprint, the conference is ready to study and contribute ideas.
So what're the goodies that leaked to Teddy and the Tribune?
"...a Big Ten plan would remove the top four teams from the BCS bowl pool and have semifinal games played on the college campus of the higher seed. That would do away with the facade of "neutral" sites such as New Orleans, Miami and Pasadena, Calif..."
That's the big one, which is also drawing howls from those outside the Big Ten that the plan would [gasp!] favor the Big Ten. It's comical. But it's not unreasonable to say that it would favor the Big Ten, even though it would favor pretty much everyone outside the old Confederacy and Southern Cal. It's totally hysterical that we're hearing operatives from the SEC, Big XII and others act as if their conference bowl teams haven't had it made for 100 years now.
Over the last seven seasons, the Big Ten has played 21 bowls in the opposing team's home state. Compare that to the SEC, which has played a grand total of two bowl games in the opposing team's home state.
Keep that in mind while you read yet another article saying how the Big Ten is being selfish, yet simultaneously ignoring how absurdly weighted the bowl system is toward Southern/Texan/Californian teams.
Moving on.
Two more (and much more likely to happen) points to come out of the Tribune article:
Instituting a 7-win requirement for bowl eligibility. Well, duh. It's pathetic how diluted the bowl season has become now that we're forced to accept two 6-6 mid-majors having it out the weekend before Christmas. Granted, some 7-5 teams aren't much better. But at least it would prevent bowl teams that finish 6-8.
Moving the BCS Championship Game closer to New Years Day. Did I already say "duh"? Not only did I watch about 5 minutes of this year's monstrosity of a "title game," but I honestly can't say I would have been much more gung-ho about it even with different teams. It's because no one is thinking about college football after January 3rd or so. The 5th is pushing it enough. But a full 10 days after the traditional "big day" for bowl games? That's not going to sell.
Your thoughts?
Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
1 recs | 137 comments
I will continue to advocate...
a full on return to the old bowl system with a plus one game that pits the BCS #1 versus the BCS #2 the first Saturday more than 7 days after New Years Day.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I can get on board with that.
FB6244 - February 7, 2012
Agreed
I like the idea of keeping bowl games, so the plus one to me is the best of both worlds. You get to keep bowls but also have a more decisive champion named because the teams meet on the field (would have totally solved 1994, too!).
I would also like to see other changes that will never occur because of the all mighty dollar. I’d love to see a MAX of 15 bowl games so that the bowls actually mean something again. 40 bowls filled with 6-6 teams is not putting butts in the seats and diminishes the game. How many times a year do we hear “they have to fight a lack of motivation to win this bowl matchup”? No longer when we make being bowl eligible a rarity, once again.
I’d love to see rankings not start til week 8 or 9 and stricter schollie rules too, but I’ll save that rant for another time!
wek5000lion09 - February 7, 2012
ive said it before and ill say it again
you lower the amount of bowl games, you make non conference games more watchable and against better competition. As it stands, people just need to get to 6 wins, which is why you have 3-4 unwatchable, non-competitive cupcakes. This way you only have to win 2-3 conference games to get your payday/increase the conference pool of money.
If you had 15 (or so) bowl games, you’d have to qualify for that spot. A bowl may be more willing to take a 9-3 team who played good schools over a 10-2 team who played no one out of conference.
Of course I dont know if that matters for schools with big followings like PSU or Texas, the bowls would be willing to take them anyway, but I think you’d generally see a reflection in a lot of schools’ schedules.
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
But the $$$ boys won't like that
Cutting the number of bowl games is great for quality, but the networks, especially ESPN will not stand for it. Fact is they call the shots and even lousy games draw advertising money and THAT is all the TV guys care about. Face it money is all the conferences care about. So what we’ll end up with is 4 more bowl games added to what we already have. Of course down the road that number will increase to the point the NCAA football championship will be decided the week after Super Bowl. On second thought, they could play the game during the SB half-time, then nobody will watch either game.
bluebellgolfer - February 7, 2012
Can't ...
A fanbase will only travel to 1 neutral site over the holidays. Can’t expect any B10 fan base to pony up for Pasenda on Jan1 just to turn around and go to New Orleans on Jan 8th. Delaney’s got it right, but not because of the “non-neutral” reason that was implied in the quote…. because of travel logistics. To go one step further, the 2 semifinal games would have to be played the week after the conference championship games, not during bowl week.
The IC Lion - February 7, 2012
Proud to say I did not watch one second of this years BCS championship game.
Can’t believe schools would not want a home game in the playoff. Just seems odd that here would be a chance for more revenues, not only for the school but the communities attached to the schools and they are against it. odd
BMAN13 - February 7, 2012
The BCS coverage is terrible.
It has been since it’s inception, and it’s part of the reason that the games are poorly rated. I think it’s the biggest part actually. I’d rather go to the dentist that watch what FOX did to it. ESPN’s is a bit better, but the weekday games are a catastophy.
Somebody explain to me why in the name of Sweet Baby Jesus why the title game is played on a weeknight? How is that not so obviously stupid to everybody on the planet?
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I'm guessing it might have something to do with the NFL..
they play on Saturdays and Sundays during January
GoodOleDays - February 7, 2012
You can work around that.
Also, imagine wild-card games as the lead in to the BCS title game? That would be a pretty bad ass day of football.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I agree..
except the Saturday wild card games for the NFL are usually 4:30 and 8 kicks, correct?
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
They would move them
Or at worst you start at 1:00. The NFL has no reason whatsoever to mess with College Football. The more viability a player gets in college, the more marketable they are when they get to the league. How much money did the NCAA make the NFL with Tim Tebow alone? Chances are, the BCS title game is going to have at least one top 5 pick in the game.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
But would the NFL...
view it as messing with them? There is a reason the BCS title game is not the same day as an NFL playoff game.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
I have to imagine that somebody could get Roger Goodel on the phone.
There is already a fair amount of cooperation between the NFL and the powers that be in college ball. It could happen. Keep in mind, there is a reason they don’t play NFL games on Saturday or Thursday when college games are being played.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
True..
I think they could make it work, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Goodel said no thanks.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
They did just announce that the NFL will start Thursday games earlier in the season.
Succss With Honor Always - February 7, 2012
There are stadium logistics involved
for those teams that share stadiums. I don’t know the number of NCAA teams that share a stadium with their NFL bretheran, but the number is more than 1 (Pitt).
rahpsu92 - February 7, 2012
There's two in PA alone (Temple being the other)
but I wonder how many there are throughout the country…
Cari Greene - February 7, 2012
Miami and Tulane
are the only others I can think of. So of the four, only Miami has been relevant to this conversation over the last 30 years.
SubLime - February 7, 2012
well, at most there are 31
The JuggerNitt - February 7, 2012
LOL *rec
Cari Greene - February 8, 2012
Also...
The highest rated college football game of all time was played on a Friday night.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
Pitt v. Utah in 2010?
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
This is why we can't have nice things, America
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Agree with you
Even if I would have wanted to watch the game, the only way I make it the entire game on a monday night is if its PSU. Unless of course, New Years is a weekday. Even then, start the game at 8, not 9. 9 really screws the east coast, but I loved monday night football in Oakland when I was there in ’93
BMAN13 - February 7, 2012
That's not the worst of it.
It’s not that the game starts at 9:00, it’s that they tell you it starts at 8:00, then spend an hour explaining to you why you want to watch the game that you already agreed to watch by virtue of the fact that you just turned on the f@#king channel. Then once the game gets started, they brutalize with you commercials to a level that make watching the game simply unbearable.
I actually think FOX’s coverage of the BCS was so bad that it devalued the property to an extent that it might be actionable.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
eh
NCAA basketball game is a Monday, the Super Bowl is a weeknight (technically). NBA/NHL/MLB can be any night (Though i despise that the MLB plays WS games at 9 oclock) Also, even if it were played on New Year’s Day, it would generally be a “weeknight.” unless new year’s day was a Fri-Sun.
I see your point, it hurts viewership to show a game at 845 on a Monday, but its not that out of the ordinary.
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
The Super Bowl is the Super Bowl.
Also, when I had a job I always took the day after off. Second of all, it would be better on a Saturday.
The rest of those things have rapidly declining ratings over the years.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
i agree with you.
and i think the decline in ratings has more to do with the start time then the day of the week.
By the way, I was thinking Sunday how awesome the west coast has it for the Super Bowl. It starts at 330, is over by 8. You can get hammered and still get a good nights rest for work the next day.
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
This is a good point, regarding the potential extra home game
Why a school wouldn’t want that is beyond me. Especially when they are garaunteed a BCS bowl a game later, win or lose
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
No matter how good your plan is...
I think you need more than a few weeks notice to hold a college football game.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
Realistically though, what needs to be done?
Sell tickets? They go to season ticket holders first, and the internet takes care of the rest pretty easily.
Staffing the stadium isn’t too hard of a job in college football.
I’m genuinely curious though, I’ve never planned a college football game in my life, so I don’t know what goes into it
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Really?
What about hotel rooms? Staffing, etc. You typcially have years to make these plans, plus, you know they are going to happen. You don’t think that are some unforeseen logistical concerns with essentially hosting the Sugar bowl on what, four weeks notice. And it’s the week of Christmas?
The fact that they do it regularly makes it possible, probably, but that doesn’t mean everybody would be really excited about it.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
Baseball does it
Hockey, NBA, NCAA basketball for the Final 4 (probably the best example). When money is at stake, stuff gets done.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
The NCAA examples are neutral sites.
The former two examples are totally different. Nobody travels for a hockey game, season ticket holders go. A football game for 110,000 people on that short of notice is a totally different deal.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I'll grant you that few travel for the NBA, MLB or NHL
But why would it matter that it’s a neutral site? State College or Norman, OK or Tuscaloosa can’t get ready for a few hundred thousand guests in an otherwise completely empty time of the year? And it’s not like the fans won’t see it coming, your team is either good in late October (and there’s a shot) or they’re not. It’s just like the Final Four to me in that respect. Plan ahead, hope for the best.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
The site of the final four
and the other NCAA regional sites are set years in advance. As are pretty much all NCAA football games. I don’t know whether or not it’s impossible, but I bet there are bunch of reasons why a bit of lead time on a game like that would be necessary. But I could be wrong.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
It's definitely easier if it's set in advance
For one thing, the press knows where they are ultimately going and so do the corporate guys who use the events to entertain. I don’t particularly care if their lives are made easier, but I do understand that their happiness plays a role in whether or not these types of events are successful. My point is that if there is money to be made, then the hotel, restaurant, and shop owners will find a way to pull it off. Even in State College and other cow towns.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
Fuck the press and corporate guys
This is college football, damnit. Red-blooded, natural light drinking, dizzy bat playing, tailgate having, college football. I’d be happy if all of the corporate interest was checked at the door. I blame them partly for the ruination the bowl system anyways.
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
As a corporate guy who hopes to someday garner these types of invitations
I cannot agree with one half of your subject line.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
Well I'll take it back when I get an invite from you
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
I'm sure the business in the area wouldn't be too upset about doing all that extra work
Especially in State College, so they can charge 300 dollars a night.
Will there be hiccups? Yes. But this isn’t anyones first rodeo.
Still, I’m going to be selfish. I think the reduction in travel for the fans makes the games much more accessible. I can’t afford to travel to a play-off game and the national championship game. I can afford to go to State College and the National Championship game. Plus, this is college football. Its supposed to be for the students first and foremost. If there is going to be some sort of playoff, that should definitely be a huge consideration
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
That ‘supposed’ needs quotation marks to properly ironicize it.
SubLime - February 7, 2012
Interesting point.
Seeing as these games would likely be played while the kids are on Winter Break.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
This is why you have to put together a bid package, about 4 years in advance,
and explain to the BOG of the NFL why your city is equipped to host the Super Bowl and what plans you have in place for personnel, hotels, transportation, sponsor parties etc. Cities have been turned down for the sole reason that their planning did not seem sufficient to handle a big event.
PSUinBOSSton - February 7, 2012
The super bowl is one thing
And we’re not talking about the NC here, which would be the closest thing to it. We’re talking about the play-ins. How many people make events out of NFL play-off games like they do the Super Bowl? There doesn’t seem to be a problem with way the NFL handles the play-offs. Generally home field is only locked up a few weeks in advance, and the games are generally attended at about the same level as the regular season games.
I fail to see how this would be any different in the proposed arrangement.
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Again.
The possibility of an NFL play-off game can be reasonably anticipated. I lived in State College, and I live in Pittsburgh. The impact of the Indiana State games has about 100 times the impact on State College as the AFC Championship had on Pittsburgh last year. Primarily, because of the travel required. They are totally different things.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
It's a problem...
that PSU would have to deal with 1 or 2 times a decade at most. I think it is a nightmare to get ready for, but it is doable.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
The rarity of it would be a big part of the problem.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
Yes, but...
it’s doable. If we can put a man on the moon, we can get 110K people to State College in 7 to 10 days.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
Just because you can do something,
doesn’t mean it’s the best idea available.
PSUinBOSSton - February 7, 2012
And just because something is hard
doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
TWSS
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
What do you have against NASA?
SubLime - February 7, 2012
NFL stadiums are set up
(1) to generally hold between 60-75% of the capacity of top performing CFB programs
and, more importantly (2) are in cities with at least some capacity to handle such an influx of people due to the fact that they are generally in the markets that will support professional ticket prices and high TV ratings.
There is a big difference between trying to find people a place for an influx of 50,000-60,000 to stay in even the least equipped NFL city (Green Bay? Jacksonville? Buffalo? Just some examples) than there is trying to fit 80,000-100,000 in many college towns (State College? Storrs? Bloomington? Boise? on and on). The net effect is more people in cities with worse infrastructure.
And by the way, NCAA tournament host cities also have to put together presentations on where everyone will stay etc. So do the conference championship games. It’s not nearly just the super bowl.
PSUinBOSSton - February 7, 2012
Yeah I understand all of that
I’m not saying that there won’t be roadbumps or hiccups, but its not like 110,000 people in State College is unprecedented. All teams can put a plan together, and tweak it on a year to year basis. Its not like there is absolutely no planning period, or general plan for that matter.
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
mid december or end of december is 2 or 3 weeks after the championship games
Make all conferences be done by the first week in December. Then 3 weeks later hold the playoff games.
BMAN13 - February 7, 2012
That seems like plenty of time
Its not like they don’t do this 7 or 8 times a year
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Why? I can’t understand why anybody cares about this. If you’re not interested in the game, don’t watch.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I would think the schools would have a vested interest in putting this limitation in place
If you’re going to a bowl as a 6-6 team, you’re fans won’t show up, so the school will have to write a big check for unsold tickets. Your coach gets to claim that he took his team to a bowl for four straight seasons (even though three were played before December 28th), so give him a raise. And the most vocal alumni (who would never buy a ticket and travel to Detroit in December) will scream if you turn down a bowl invitation.
In summary, I think the ADs are driving this move.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
Surely you're not serious!?
jman07 - February 7, 2012
I meant as opposed to the ADs giving a shit about fan interest
but I take your point; the dollars drive every decision they make.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
Yea, I love how Delany
is saying that “we missed the boat (yadda yadda yah)” like they care about what the average fan thinks or feels. They look at college football and all they see/hear is MONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEYMONEY!!!!!!!!!
jman07 - February 7, 2012
He is serious
And don’t call him Shirley.
LAPSU - February 7, 2012
jman07 - February 7, 2012
I've been called worse
kijana's acl - February 8, 2012
Agreed
I like college football, in all forms. If the last sliver before a bleak 8 month off-season happens to be Army vs. MTSU, then I say bring on the fightin’ Dwight Dashers.
More CFB is never a bad thing.
Truck O'Saurus - February 7, 2012 via Android app
Agreed on championship game date
After all the games on New Year’s day it seems like the season is over. I’m okay with it being a day or two later, but after that it just doesn’t interest me. If Penn State has already played and most bowls are done then I’ve moved on to next season.
psfann - February 7, 2012
theres also something about having
SMU/Pitt and Northern Illinois/Arkansas State the two days leading up to it that make the championship game seem lackluster.
Dont forget, the games on different days stuff is a money move by the NCAA because they package the BCS television rights to one network, and you cant play all 5 games on 1 day. Back in the day (a Wednesday) i remember the Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl was on NBC, Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl on ABC and the Cotton Bowl was on CBS. SO you could have these games competing with one another.
Also I imagine there is exclusivity in the contract so that when ESPN puts up 800 billion dollars for the rights, they are assured there will be no other games to interfere with it, which is why all New Year’s Day games are over by 430, just in time to get the Rose Bowl at 5.
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
That's all true.
But the effort to maximize exposure and generate advertising dollars is making the games progressively less entertaining for the fans. Which leads to the games becoming less valuable. There is something about letting the people who destroyed the bowl system craft your playoff system seems foolish to me.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
yes agreed
its a shame how much TV and their money controls everything about college sports.
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
It has all been diminished.
Ten years ago who amongst the sane would have thought that the National Hockey League could compete on New Years Day?
SubLime - February 7, 2012
Canada?
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
I see you missed the word "sane".
Common mistake when discussing the Canadians.
The JuggerNitt - February 7, 2012
I don't know if I really want to see a playoff, but I do like the +1 format.
The one thing college football has that makes it better than every other sport is the fact that the regular season is its own playoff. If the goal becomes “make the playoffs” instead of “finish in the top 2”, it removes some of the importance of the regular season games. This year we kind of got to experience that during the last week of the regular season and the conference championship games as there was really nothing that could have happened to prevent LSU and Bama from a rematch.
The whole neutral site situation is laughable and the feigned idiocy by the SEC administrators to claim it isn’t a distinct advantage for their teams is infuriating. It requires willful ignorance of the statistics to continue supporting their claims.
Succss With Honor Always - February 7, 2012
This year
proved that “the regular season is its playoff” is a farce.
jman07 - February 7, 2012
truth.
Cari Greene - February 7, 2012
Maybe it's just a double elimination?
jman07 - February 7, 2012
No
Best two out of three. LSU is waiting for another game chance in April.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
not to nit pick
but isnt that the same as double elimination technically?
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
Only if the games involving Alabama and LSU (but not both of them) had actually mattered
Which, of course, they didn’t (see, e.g., LSU v. Georgia).
And, yes, it’s pretty much the same thing. I just hated that Bama got another shot when Ok St. couldn’t, simply because OMG SEC is the best ever!
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
There are exceptions to every rule.
This was one of those exceptions. There were only 2 games this year that you can claim had no effect on the outcome. The first Bama/LSU game and the LSU/Georgia SEC championship. With the exception of those 2 games, every other game, played by every other team, mattered. Believe me, I’m not saying it’s perfect, but you run the same risk having a 4 team playoff as you do regarding what just happened. Taking this year as an example would’ve made the outcome even more debatable in a playoff if you ended up with Arkansas in the mix as well.
Succss With Honor Always - February 7, 2012
Yea but there is an old saying
and I dont know who said it or what it was exactly, but it had to do with science and theorems and so forth, and the quote, paraphrased has something to do with “There are a million ways to prove something right, but if you can prove it wrong just once, it invalidates the whole theory.”
I think thats the case here. Sure 99% meant something, but just having the 1 or 2 that didnt, in my book, invalidates the idea that the regular season matters. Particularly this year
swiggy04 - February 7, 2012
True, but there isn't a perfect system out there.
Using this year as an example, the playoff would’ve included Bama, LSU, Oklahoma State and Stanford. If Bama and LSU don’t play each other in the first round, there is a potential for them to play in the NC game and we have the same outcome. Add into the fact that you could’ve potentially had Arkansas included in there instead of Oklahoma State or Stanford, and suddenly you not only have the same issue with the NC game, but it’s also applicable to the semi-final game.
I think a major problem that is related to this situation but rarely gets included in this conversation is the disparity between the conferences and the out of conference schedules. I don’t really have a solution, but I do think that if there was a better way to qualify teams by refining their out of conference schedules and also not allowing a conference to carry enough weight to end up with 2 teams in the NC game, it would go a long way towards eliminating the need to change the system.
Succss With Honor Always - February 7, 2012
To be fair to LSU
They did play West Virginia and Oregon OOC. Alabama scheduled us, away. I would generally complain about the SEC’s track record of OOC scheduling, but those two this year didn’t fit the norm
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
It wasn't their OOC that sucked
It was their conference. Only Arkansas, Georgia and South Carolina (pre-Lattimore injury) were worth a damn. IIRC, LSU played Arkansas and Georgia, while Bama played only Arkansas. So, really Bama played Arkansas and a B- PSU team. Not impressive.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
I agree completely
But SwHA’s point was their track record of scheduling Florida high school teams as OOC opponents.
Also, Alabama got a shot at home, and blew it. Homefield advantage being what it is in college football, that alone should disqualify a team from a rematch in the championship game. That, more than anything, aggrivated me about the game.
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Agreed.
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
Seconded.
Succss With Honor Always - February 8, 2012
South Carolina post-Lattimore injury beat up on Nebraska in the Bowl Game
Not sure how you can make that statement.
carolinaeasy - February 8, 2012
This is why the situation this year was so difficult.
It’s very likely that Bama and LSU were the 2 best teams in the country, but nobody wants to admit it. The only criticism you can give Bama is that they lost to LSU at home in a very close game.
You’ve proven that both those schools had a decent OOC schedule. That’s not to say every other team in the SEC did as well, which could have been a reason why the conference quality gets inflated. The only way I can accurately think to correct this issue is having 2 of the OOC games scheduled against teams finishing with (or near) the same record from the previous year. That way each school gets 2 games of their choosing (to schedule cupcakes or old rivalries, whichever they prefer) and 2 games against teams that they should have a difficulty playing. It still wouldn’t eliminate these kinds of controversies, but it would help to determine the relative value of teams and conferences some more and also give us some great games to watch in the first 4 weeks of the season.
Succss With Honor Always - February 8, 2012
they may have been the 2 best teams
but from the regular season we (supposedly) knew who the better team was. One problem with college football is there are too many teams and too few games to be able to make meaningful comparisons. Sure you can generally say that some teams are better than others, but when it comes down to ranking the top 5-10, they are all close (and often haven’t played a similar enough schedule to just use W-L record to determine rank).
Adding one extra game between just 2 teams isn’t going to be enough to help separate them, either, especially if they wind up splitting the series. That’s why rematches in college football are just plain stupid, and they should either agree that the one game is enough (and ban rematches) or make it so the first team to 2 wins is the “better” team. Basically, having a rematch in the championship game has a greater chance of confusing the situation than it does of resolving it and determining the better team; the only possible outcomes were either to confirm what we already knew (boring), or to tell us that we don’t know anything now and are going to arbitrarily say the second game matters more so THAT team is the champ (stupid). Was anyone involved with the BCS really surprised when the attitude surrounding the champ game was, “this is boring and stupid”?
The JuggerNitt - February 9, 2012
oh, and before anyone says that it would be the same if there was a playoff,
while this would essentially be true, there’d be one key difference: they actually would have “proved” they were better than all the other teams as well as opposed to this year where it was just guessed/assumed that they were better. Sure, the rematch is still boring and stupid, and won’t likely resolve anything, but at least then we’d have much more confidence that we were subjected to a boring, stupid game because they both really earned the right to bore us.
The JuggerNitt - February 9, 2012
Gee, what changed in the past two months to go from "laughable" to serious proposal?
What happened in, say, early November? I’ll give you a hint, it doesn’t have anything to do with Joe Paterno.
PSU Mudder - February 7, 2012
At first I was like, damnitsomuch
Because I don’t want a college football play-off. Then I read his proposal. I like it. Every year the top 4 or 5 teams are generally the best by the end of the season, then a drop off starts. This plan still makes the regular season important while simultaneously giving us 4 other interesting match-ups, and semi-legitimizes a ‘national chamion’.
I also like the top seated home venue for the play-ins. Reduces the travel for both fans and players, and gasp, possibly brings bowls up North, where football should be played.
Also to your point Chris, I don’t care about college football after New Years day. Mostly because I don’t care about any college football game that isn’t played on Saturday, or at least on a day with a recovery day afterwards. To hell with the TV audiences. I didn’t really watch any bowls outside of Jan 2nd bowls this year anyways
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
I'm okay with the playoff
so long as its kept at 4 teams. None of this 8 or 16 stuff. And a team must win its conference if it is a member of one.
You are right about the drop off being after 4 or 5. A 4 team playoff means you still need to go undefeated, or one loss with some help in order to be in, so the regular season is not diminished.
PSU Mudder - February 7, 2012
*and by Chris I mean Mike
Sorry Mike
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Anyone else think
Delany looks like somebody’s uncle, drunk off cheap vodka and Busch pounders?
skarocksoi - February 7, 2012
He looks like an evil russian dictator, that much I'm sure of
So yes, its entirely plausable that he spends his days drunk off of cheap vodka and Busch pounders
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
Looks like the dad in Step Brothers
kijana's acl - February 7, 2012
He looks like an asshole.
Bob Sacamano - February 8, 2012
When was the last time Florida...
…played an OOC game outside of the state of Florida?
LowcountryLion - February 7, 2012
1991 or so...
at Syracuse.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
Things I like and want, in order of importance:
1. Less bowls. I’m thinking in the neighborhood of 15.
2. Condensed bowl schedule
3. Ohio State sucks
4. Four team playoff
5. The playoff field be comprised of the highest-ranked conference champions
6. An order of Darkhorse Pazzo’s Choice wings
7. Homefield advantage in the first round
8. Increased ratio of northern-to-southern bowl games
9. Eight team playoff
10. The national championship be on a Friday or Saturday night, as close to New Years as possible
11. Keeping conference ties with the Rose Bowl
…
…
Over 9000. The current system
06Lion - February 7, 2012
Rec'd for the Dark horse wings
dwlion - February 7, 2012
1. Less bowls. I’m thinking in the neighborhood of 15. – AGREE – MAYBE 20 BETTER NUMBER (40 TEAMS VS 30 TEAMS)
2. Condensed bowl schedule – AGREE – ALTHOUGH TOUGHER WITH TV
3. Ohio State sucks – AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY
4. Four team playoff – WHAT ABOUT TEAM 5 WHO IS ALSO 11-1 AND WINS THE BIG 12?
5. The playoff field be comprised of the highest-ranked conference champions – AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY – THOSE WHO DO NOT WIN CONFERENCES DO NOT GET FRUITCUP
6. An order of Darkhorse Pazzo’s Choice wings – HAVE NO IDEA – ALTHOUGH I’LL THROW A SHOUT-OUT TO GUMBY’S AND THE POKEY STIX OR DP DOUGH AND THE MANY MANY CALZONE’S
7. Homefield advantage in the first round – CONTROVERSIAL – BUT INTERESTING TO SEE HOW LONG IT TAKES FOR A BIG 10 TEAM TO BE AHEAD IN BCS OR POLLS AGAINST AN SEC TEAM OF EQUAL RECORD
8. Increased ratio of northern-to-southern bowl games – WHO WANTS TO GO TO MADISON IN JANUARY?
9. Eight team playoff – BETTER THAN 4 TEAM, BUT WHAT ABOUT 9TH TEAM WHO IS 10-2 AND HAPPENED TO GIVE THE 5TH RANKED TEAM THEIR 1 LOSS THIS YEAR – DON’T REALLY HAVE 8 RELEVANT CONFERENCES, LET ALONE 6 (BIG EAST WE’RE REFERRING TO YOU), SO OTHER TEAMS WOULD BE NON-CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS WHICH ALLOWS A NON-CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM TO AGAIN WIN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
10. The national championship be on a Friday or Saturday night, as close to New Years as possible – NOW BOUT NEW YEAR’S EVE – WE COLLEGE KIDS LIKE TO PARTY AND ALWAYS GONNA HAVE THE NEXT DAY OFF – WHO WANTS TO WATCH THE BALL DROP ANYMORE ANYWAY? – AT LEAST HAVE THE SEMIFINAL GAMES BE THIS NIGHT WITH FINAL GAME WEEK LATER AT MOST.
11. Keeping conference ties with the Rose Bowl – FIESTA BOWL SUCKS – SUGAR ORANGE AND ROSE ARE KINGS – COTTON BOWL MAY MAKE A PUSH – I DISAGREE, ROSE BOWL IS A GREAT TRIP AND GOOD REWARD FOR BIG TEN PLAYERS – SHOULD TRY TO KEEP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
mikey23 - February 8, 2012
I'm all for a big playoff
8-16 teams. I think it would work just fine and be incredibly awesome.
skarocksoi - February 7, 2012
I don't like big playoffs.
It becomes less about which team is the best and becomes more about which team is the hottest at that time. It also completely shifts the dynamic of the season. You no longer want to be the best, you now just want to make the playoffs.
My biggest problem with playoffs is that I don’t think it’s necessarily true to claim the winner is the best team in the sport. I think it’s pretty much undeniable to say that both the Giants and the St. Louis Cardinals were not the best teams in their sports throughout the year. They were the best team in the playoffs. While it’s a dynamic I’ve accepted, it’s a dynamic that has been absent in the NCAA and one whose absence I have greatly appreciated.
Succss With Honor Always - February 7, 2012
See Giants, New York (twice)
jesse. - February 7, 2012
Playoffs...
are exciting, that’s why we have them. Regardless of your opinion about soccer, the European domestic leagues have the fairest approach. Play everybody home and away. Team with the most points at the end wins. Wins = 3points. Ties = 1 point. However, if you have a dominant team, it is fairly boring after 3/4’s of the season is played.
Esteban d' Amur - February 7, 2012
Then why even have bowls?
Just let computers and biased coaches/media pick a winner after a 12 game regular season.
There are too many variables not to have a playoff in College Football—strength of schedule, injuries, pre-season polls, etc. Too many years, there are multiple 1 loss teams, or undefeated teams, and we have to guess or judge who is best. I want it decided on the field.
The regular season should be the GAUNTLET by which 8 teams find their way into an exciting playoff. The regular season will still matter, even moreso, because a team that loses a close game early isn’t eliminated.
A seeded eight team field would be incredible, and it would bring me back to watching non-PSU football games. The ratings would be INSANE. Oh, and you can still have bowl games (also known as exhibition games) for all the other teams w/ a winning record.
Wildcatamounts - February 7, 2012
Just do a computer simulation
More time for tailgating.
jesse. - February 7, 2012
I'd rather the computer pick the winner after 12 games
Than have any more than an 8 team play off.
Because quite frankly, I care much more about beating OSU and Michigan than I do about winning a national championship.
My favorite memory was and always will be the 2005 victory over OSU. The most soulcrushing was the following week in Anne Arbor, followed closely by Iowa in 2008. The 2008 Rosebowl was dissapointing but thats about it. The 2005 Orange bowl was pretty sweet, but I wouldn’t even put it in my top 5 games of that season.
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
And just for completeness
My top 5 2005 game list
1) OSU
2) Minnesota, which makes a run at OSU, truthfully
3) jNW – no matter how angry I was during that game
4) Michigan. Yes, we lost but it was as intense of a game as you could ask for
5) Pounding Wisconsin to finish out the regular season
psuphysicist - February 7, 2012
MICHIGAN STATE
WE PLAYED MIGHIGAN STATE LAST EVERY YEAR UNTIL LAST YEAR – I’M SURE WE POUNDED MICHIGAN STATE – WISCONSIN POUNDING WAS ROSE BOWL YEAR I THINK
mikey23 - February 8, 2012
Wisconsin was the last home game
Gameday went to the away game at MSU that year.
Actually, I was in rec hall when the team flew in from that game. Joe Pa gave a great speech, everyone chanted 1 more year for Poz and then we led a jubuliant celebration down beaver canyon. Good times
psuphysicist - February 8, 2012
In other words,
We can go 2 – 10 every year and you’d be just fine?
National Championships please!
misdreavus79 - February 7, 2012
I care more about beating OSU and Michigan than pretty much any other teams.
That is, until the IM “touch” football games against the BoT and/or the media “phalanx” start.
The JuggerNitt - February 8, 2012
That may be true
but college football is at a different level than say the NFL. The disparity between NFL teams is so slim, that all it takes is a hot team to streak through the playoffs and win. In college, usually the best teams are so good that they can overcome an off day against a lesser team. And if they cant, then they probably werent the best team. I doubt you see a team only win 8 games in a regular season yet streak their way through the playoffs to win the national championship.
And really, how is it that much different than what we have now? You can’t legitimately tell me that its unfair that the possibility that a team goes cold and loses in the playoffs despite being the best team, yet say its ok that a team loses 1 game in the regular season and doesn’t get any shot at a championship game. You can’t tell me in 2008 that USC wasn’t one of the best teams in the nation by the end of the year and didnt deserve to get a shot at the title.
skarocksoi - February 7, 2012
Some very smart people (not being sarcastic) thought USC was a legit No. 1
after the Rose Bowl. I couldn’t really say they’re wrong, either.
Mike Pettigano - February 8, 2012
I felt they were the best team in the nation
but I’m not very smart.
jman07 - February 8, 2012
GENIUS! GOD BLESS DELANY! GOD BLESS THE B1G!
This Big Ten Thing is getting better and better every day.
Picture This.
BAMA or LSU versus PSU in BEAVER STADIUM IN JANUARY!
HALLELULIAH.
WHERE’S MY PIPE?
joefromboalsburg - February 7, 2012
I find it laughable that last year when this
came up Delaney voted against it while the high and mighty SEC Slive failed in his attempt to orchestrate a playoff. Maybe the details of his plan were crap, but I’m more apt to believe that the B1G, still stirs the college football drink. Big Universities = lots of graduates = lots of football fans to buy tickets and watch TV = driver’s seat.
rahpsu92 - February 7, 2012
I would just like too see
Some of these southern teams be forced to play in the f*cking cold
Modanya - February 7, 2012
Why?
So they can complain about having to play in snow, cold or wind that the other team somehow avoided?
kijana's acl - February 8, 2012
They wouldn't complain
but the sportswriters who had to cover the game certainly would.
skarocksoi - February 8, 2012
I just want them to play in real football weather
Modanya - February 8, 2012
Preparing the Host City??
Guys do you have any idea of how big Green Bay Wisconsin is?? They can manage to throw together a home playoff game for the Packers within 2 weeks.
If they can manage then just about any College town can
airleg1 - February 7, 2012
I honestly think having the NC game on a weekend
would make such a huge difference in ratings (at least for that game).
The reason the Super Bowl is so big is that people have all day to plan and execute parties. Sure, maybe people can’t get as banged up because of work the next day, but the whole world does not revolve around drinking copious amounts of alcohol while watching football (gasp! And this coming from a guy who brews his own beer, went to PSU, and loves football).
The Super Bowl is an event. How many people watch just because it is an excuse to hang out with friends? How many people now just watch for the commercials? Do I really inherently care any more about a Super Bowl between the Giants and Pats than I do between a NC game between LSU and Alabama? Not at all. Do I know anyone who had a NC game party? No. Would I have driven an hour to my brothers for the game on a weeknight even if he did have a party? Probably not.
I actually think it is ridiculous that the SB is not on Saturday night, but at this point it is a strong tradition. College is played on Saturday. Make the game on a Saturday. There should be nothing crazy about this. With a +1 or small playoff the NC game also gains a bit more legitimacy… so more people who aren’t college fans because of the rankings and “competitive imbalance” would be less likely to see the NC game as a farce (like many people viewed this year).
One thing is obvious, the falling ratings and low attendance are having the effect of forcing them to re-evaluate. If no one is making money, there’s no reason to maintain the system. The problem is NOT a lack of interest in college football.
BNittsDeMilo - February 8, 2012
umm what?
Lies! I refuse to believe otherwise.
psuphysicist - February 8, 2012
He's a witch, burn him!
You’ve stolen my soooouuuul
swiggy04 - February 8, 2012
this isn't my nose, its a false one
:-P
mikey23 - February 8, 2012
Challenge accepted.
skarocksoi - February 8, 2012
Can we set Jim Delany on fire?
Bob Sacamano - February 8, 2012
Damn servers.
Bob Sacamano - February 8, 2012
Here is my thought for a playoff:
Every conference champion qualifies. If you can’t win your conference, you don’t belong. If you’re in South Bend, join a conference or get left out. College football will survive without Notre Lame. It has for 20 years.
By only allowing conference champs in, it will eliminate powerhouses playing high school teams. So what if Penn State loses to LSU in September? This could lead to more exciting, competitive non-conference games.
Let the first couple of games be played on the field of the higher ranked team. There’s your incentive for playing a tough schedule. If you win, there is your reward; a home playoff game. After 68, 69, 73, and 94, imagine Beaver Stadium in December for a playoff. Then have the traditional bowls the last couple of rounds.
Ab4PSU - February 8, 2012
I agree with the conf champs idea
unfortunately too many conferences have tiebreakers that directly or indirectly use non-conference games
The JuggerNitt - February 9, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Black Shoe Diaries to post a comment.