What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
96 Comments
- AtHomeBoy2000, on 11/28/2007, -4/+45VERY well written and thought out. It'll never happen.
- Murphy52589, on 11/28/2007, -4/+30Yeah this would work a lot better. Also...the NFL should do the same thing that the NCAA does in overtime. If the other team scores, you have a chance to go back and tie it up. I hate how once you score once in overtime in the NFL it's over.
- Lou3000, on 11/28/2007, -3/+19There are a couple things that he doesn't include that I think are important.
1. Keep the big four bowls (Sugar, Rose, Orange, and Fiesta). Use them as the Semi-final games. Then have a College Football Championship at a neutral site (a huge pro-stadium, different each year).
2. Cut the college football season down to 10 or 11 games. It is insane to think that a Championship team and a conference winner would conceivably play 17 games. That is a lot of strain for a college football player. This would mean that the regular season would end the first weekend of November for most. The semi-finals could be the last games played before an exam/Christmas break. Play the championship game on New Year's Day.
3. I agree that they should keep the minor bowls. This allows teams who have now cut their schedules down to 10 games could still get an game in without a playoff birth. Also, with fewer games, bowl eligibility is dropped to 5 wins. - Wendigo6x3, on 11/28/2007, -4/+18I really pray that we can establish a system like this, and yes it CAN happen, once the conference execs stop being idiots.
- YoungDeezy, on 11/28/2007, -1/+14I agree. It's almost as if the game is determined by a freakin' coin flip.
- Worldchrisis, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9He's using the BCS rankings.
- airwalkery2k, on 11/28/2007, -2/+10I'd watch that.
- powpow, on 11/28/2007, -3/+11Please happen...soon. The BCS is a mess.
- zizzo, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8Hearing Hawaii fans is better than hearing fans from defeated teams whine about how they "deserve" the title.
- stormgren, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6I agree. Most of the time it comes down to whoever gets the ball first wins, although the Browns did have one defensive stop in OT this year.
Either that or field-goals shouldn't count, you should have to score a touchdown. - jon30041, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5I don't watch college football because it doesn't strike me as important whether a team wins or loses or whatever. Something about "style points"?... I don't know, but I'd definitely watch more Northwestern games if there was a playoff system in place. It'd make sense!
- MrStabby, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5If I could only digg you down twice...
- yunus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5Yeah its much better to disallow teams based on their prior records and the fact that they are not known as a "football school"
- luke727, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7Beautiful. Unfortunately it would never work because it is a fair system that makes sense, something that time and time again NCAA I-A has proven they want nothing to do with. In fact, NCAA I-A is the only sport I can think of on the entire planet that doesn't have a playoff system. For *****'s sake, even women's curling has playoffs. My hope is that one day, people will look back at the BCS the same way they do at the Macarena: "what the ***** were we thinking?"
On a side note, why the ***** is "proven" not in Digg's spell checker? - stormgren, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4If they had to play 120+ football games people wouldn't last more than one season before being injured.
Also: basketball is only about 80 games, and baseball is mostly standing around with only a few moments of actual athleticism for everyone but the pitcher. - robmoff2, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4I think this is a great plan. I also agree with the other commenters in saying it will never happen. These games would be incredible! I am sick and tired of the guessing games and the subjective nature of the BCS. I am also tired of all of the ridiculous matchups between powerhouse programs and the little cupcakes they load their schedules with. Of course every now and then those games are a blast to watch (think Alabama vs. University of Louisiana Monroe). With this system in place it would pay for teams to take on more evenly matched competition.
This system could work. It could make college football far more interesting and even more profitable. It would allow fans to see the games they have been dying to see for years and would give the athletes a more fair and balanced system. - OswaldKenobi, on 11/28/2007, -3/+7I disagree. I prefer the sudden death overtime in the pros over the current college overtime. I think starting teams from the 25 does more to pad the stats than determine a winner. If each team got a shot from the 50, I'd feel that change to the overtime system would make it perfect. Given that ties in college football were eliminated because of the BCS, why not bring them back after one over time session?
- onwardknave, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4I always thought this could be solved by declaring the first team to put up 5 more than the opponent to be the winner. That would shorten overtimes (as teams would not be playing "for the tie") and would ensure that a single field goal would not be enough to end the game, since statistically, the first team with possession is more likely to win. Maybe even give the opposing team one possession to score? Perhaps a 5-point advantage, or the leader at the end of a 15:00 OT whichever comes first). The intention here is to take the coin-flip advantage out of OT, and potentially reduce injuries by keeping multiple OTs off the table.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3There is the reason for the BCS...........M-O-N-E-Y
- Crosshare, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3If you consider being the best team winning a coin flip, sure.
- grakker, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Except have a tough schedule.
- RyeBrye, on 11/28/2007, -3/+610 game seasons for all but 16 teams? That's never going to happen. Each football game brings in tons of money, and losing 2 of those big-money games is not going to go over well with the schools.
a 16-team playoff schedule? No... try a 4-team playoff... or maybe a 8-team at the VERY most... - podalirius, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Sounds like App State is still chappin' your ass.
- momomathew, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I am with you. It used to be New Years Day was a college football junkies dream. Now we have the BCS games spread out over a week. I like watching the Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowl all played on one day.
- MrStabby, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3Leave it to a Michigan native to not have a common grasp on reality...
It's better to have MORE teams than deserve it, than not have ALL the teams that deserve it... - MrStabby, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3It's not the rankings people have issues with, it's the bowl placement, and the decision of who plays in the title game...
This way, even if you don't feel like your team is ranked where they belong, as long as they are ranked high enough to matter, they WILL matter... - bld1777, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2"(a huge pro-stadium, different each year)"
there are about 6 if not more college stadiums that are bigger than the biggest nfl stadium
also by using bowl games the non bcs conference teams will get less teams in bowl games - hutch113, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2A problem that I have with this is that he decries the fact that the BCS values winning over poor teams a lot higher than losing to great teams. One, the actual computers actually take this into account. A win adds to your score, but a win against a weak team adds less than a win against a good team. Similarly a loss to a weak team hurts more than a loss to a good team. But with this system with only 5 at large bids there will undoubtedly be 2-3 teams left out each year that could win the championship. It is a playoff where certain teams match up better than they do against other teams. This will make some teams play good teams in non-conference to prepare for conference play and it will make other teams more likely to play lesser teams in non-conference to assure themselves of at least an at-large bid.
Plus, if you limit it to 10 regular season games then you are getting an even bigger group of teams that have legitimate claims to be in the playoff. And many of those teams will have legitimate claims that they could have won it all. If college football goes to a playoff similar to this they need to have at least 20 teams. At 20, the top 4 teams get a bye for the first week. Ideally, there would be an 11 game regular season and then a 32 team playoff. But I think if you did a 20 team playoff that would work too. - akatherder, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Hmm, I had a class with LeFevour, so I've heard of the guy.
I've been to all the games. I think I have a decent idea what I'm talking about. - khalorei, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5It's not whining when they do everything in their power to prove themselves, succeed and still don't have a shot at the big game.
- lordmike, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3It will never happen, because it makes too much sense... I personally think that the college presidents insist on not having a playoff purely out of spite. Everyone wants it, so, we're not going to have it... and if it pisses everyone off, great! We'll show you who's boss!!! We're not going to bow down to commons sense, we are going to make it suck so badly just so we can show you all how powerful and self important we college presidents are.
You know, if you aren't going to have a playoff, then you should at least go back to the way it used to be... Each bowl doing its own thing and have polling create the winner... This BCS thing just sucks rocks... The old bowl system was better than this garbage... - aoneal417, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5ah, it reminds me of a couple of years ago with Auburn, undefeated, played some of the hardest teams around, and didn't get a shot, it's a damn shame
- podalirius, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2But, "weak" and "good" teams are often deemed so by some BS ranking, e.g., UM #5 at the beginning of the year, good team?
- cderry, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5We can keep the BCS Bowls, just make them the 7 games after the first round. Sugar, Fiesta, Rose, Orange, Gator, Capital One, and Outback.
This would surely put an end to the days of shared national champions. - LifeIsARhythm, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3INACCURATE Virginia tech isn't going to win the ACC
- podalirius, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3NCAA men's basketball is 3 times bigger than football, dummy, and they don't have this problem. Besides, as a Michigan native, even you should know that a top 5 team could get beat by a team that's not even in I-A, let alone some I-A conference champion. Just STFU
- trasor, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5*drool*
- Veretax, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1One way around this is to move up the "start date" of the college football season further into August that would give you some cushion at the end of the schedule.
- gettarat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1Get rid of the BCS. Get rid of the national championship.
http://footballbettingtips.net/ - Veretax, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1yeah Quarterfinals. four games means 8 teams. :/
- podalirius, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1What? No one is complaining about this for the rest of the season. No one complains about basketball players doing this. And, most of all, every other level of college football players do it. You think it's easier for them? Yeah right. Riding some bus across the country instead of a nice plane. Sounds like you should be watching cricket pussy.
- bignerd, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Too Much? You can't be serious. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you never played football growing up? As someone mentioned above, I can't think of a sport that does not have a play-off system . I don't know where you are from but in Texas (highschool) we play a 10 game season and a 4 round play-off. Same in middle school... Hell, come to think of it we did the same in pop-warner! "These poor student athletes can't handle it" doesn't fly with me. So it's ok for basketball players to travel regularly, play a 20 plus game season AND enter March Madness but football players can't play an extra 4 games...LMAO
Sorry buddy, the reason the BCS still exists is b/c of the $$$$$.... - Crosshare, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1They do this in the NFL all the time. For a stretch of time, a team in the AFC west could go 11-5, or 12-4 on still not make the playoffs, but an 8-8 team in the AFC North being the division champion skates in. You have to beat your division first, so you can't cry about it.
- Shadow82v, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Let us Hypothesize about something what will never happen.
- bld1777, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1"With this system in place it would pay for teams to take on more evenly matched competition."
teams schedule cupcakes because
because it will be a home game that will bring in a lot of money seeing as alot of these schools football programs support every other sport at the school - inactive, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1With the final BCS rankings in and conference champions determined, here's a nice 16-team playoff graphic:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2085111377 ... - akatherder, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Ok, then humor me. The 11 conference winners "deserve" it and 5 at-large "deserve" it. Why doesn't that 6th team deserve it over the winner of a ***** conference? Does everyone agree that the last at-large team is better than the first team not to make it? You still have the same arbitrary selection.
What if (hypothetically) one conference becomes unstoppably dominant? Let's say every SEC team beats their opponents by an average of 83 points. Should you take a PAC-10 winner at 4-8 over one of the SEC teams who is 9-3 (conference losses)?
There's the rub. No one agrees on who deserves it. The NCAA is too damn big to accurately crown a champion. - tacojohn48, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Currently there is no playoff system, they just take the teams that are ranked highest according to some computer algorithm that nobody understands. The winner of that game is the BCS champion.
- Crosshare, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Good point with the touchdown thing. I still think I would like to see both offenses get a chance.
- madcreator, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1I think the best way to improve the NFL overtime without really messing with it too much, would be to keep everything the same, except that it would be the first team to score six points wins. That way if you score a touchdown, it's always a walk off the field play, no need to wait around for the extra point. If you can't get the touchdown you can always get yourself half-way there with a field goal. The coin flip winner still has the advantage but it's lessened quite a bit, no more getting to the 30 yd line = win. You would retain some of the tough coaching decisions from regular time, but unless it's the Dolphin's playing the Steelers on a rainy day it wouldn't last forever.
-
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
