Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Posts of the Day

Posted: Today 2:34 PM

Re: College Football Play-off is flawed; there is a better way 



Ph3431 wrote: Enough about the 'intramural' leagues. 'No one' complains because 'no one' cares.

The significance of each regular season game would be diminished with an extended playoff. A 16-team playoff would be littered with 3, 4, and possibly even 5-loss teams. Giving each conference champion a bid would easily push that number to 6.

A 4-team playoff focuses on undefeated and 1-loss teams...and maybe a 2-loss team (hopefully, not).
 With all  due respect ph, people DO care. you think the students at Mount Union or Whitewater dont care that they play each other every year  for all the marbles? i assure you they do. playoff expansion is inevitable, and given the standards the lower levels have set- 32, is probably where the playoff is going to finish. Winning your division, whether its in the MAC, Sun Belt or AAC, matters or should. the big boys will make the tourney nearly every year, so they will still get most of the exposure and cash. with just 12 games, every game matters. if you are a middle of the road Big Ten team, losing 3 games puts you squarely on the bubble, and to have a shot at the playoffs you likely have to go 10-2, 9-3 if lots of teams have down years. We've had 2 loss teams play in BCS games, including the title game, so why not the playoff? teams start slow, gel then turn it on, like our badgers have. They deserve their shot in the dance. in the BCS none of the games 99% of the teams played mattered. it did not matter if Wisconsin ran the table they were not getting in over an undefeated SEC  team or ND. so the whole ' every week is  a playoff" stick is complete BS. Win your division, you keep playing in the postseason. if they can do 5 playoff rounds in high school, and 4 rounds in the pros, they can play 5 rounds in d-1. 99.9% of the players arent going pro, so why not allow then the chance to play a few more games and be the big men on campus for a bit longer?
Go To | Reply | Quote

Posted: Today 1:39 PM

Re: Unsung Heroes from Saturdays game 


Goldberg played end against Iowa and made that impressive chase down. I think the future looks bright mostly because of how disciplined the entire defense is, assignment-sure to a man, never giving up on plays to a man, always flowing to the ball to a man, rather than any particular player starring. This defense feels much more plug-and-play than at anytime in recent memory. That is excellent coaching!

Last edited Today 1:44 PM by TheNewRed

Go To | Reply | Quote

Posted: Today 1:21 PM

Re: College Football Play-off is flawed; there is a better way 


The devaluing the regular season argument is a joke.  How could you devalue it any more than we and every other team already does with powerhouses like Western IL, U-Mass & Tenn Tech on our non-conference schedule.  Under the current system, each team has rarely more than one legitimate NC game in the sample to peg conferences against each other.  Those games take place early in the season, and may not be the best indicator of late season success as teams change throughout the season due to injuries, first year starters stepping up and the coaching staff eventually figuring out which QB gives them the best chance of winning.  Under the current state, statistics are meaningless, padded by NC games and the imbalance in strength of schedule.

The first reform needs to be a NC schedule filled with meaningful games.  Force it upon teams by setting up something similar to the ACC/Big Ten Challenge in basketball.  Have round-robin games where the top teams play each other from other major conferences, the projected 2's play the 2's, 3's vs. 3's...  Don't bunch these games up at the beginning of the season.  Spread them throughout the season so the sampling isn't skewed by a key injury early in the season and the other items mentioned above that cause you to put an '*' next to those results. 

Even if we're foolish enough to stick with this joke of a 4-team playoff, the committee would at least have a more respectable data sample.  The Big Ten may not be as bad now as it was early in the year, for example, based on each team's current 1-game sample from September.

Then, do the right thing and expand the playoff to 8, 12, 16, 24 or 32 teams.  If you think that results in too long a season, knock the little sisters of the poor game off the schedules.  I like the idea of home games for the higher seeds in the early round(s).  Let the money flow to the college towns instead of to Orlando & other sites.  I have no problem with early round byes.  More motivation in the regular season.

Losing a game or two due to a key injury or freak event shouldn't blow up your season like it does under the current system.  It should earn you a lower seed or maybe knock you out of the dance if you are on the bubble.

College basketball and the NFL got it right.  MLB finally figured it out.  NBA & NHL have truly diluted their regular season.  I don't think many would argue that the college basketball and NFL regular seasons lack meaning.  They settle it on the field/court and have found the right balance.

What I am proposing is far more interesting to the fans, the TV networks and to the players.  How ironic that the greatest sport on earth couldn't do more than it already has to mess up the process of appropriately determining who the best team is.

As an aside, I wish there was a way to properly honor the outgoing seniors without letting the air out of the stadium.  I felt clinically depressed after the senior introductions last year before the Penn State game.  No more Chris Borland, no more Jared Abbrederis, no more familiar faces on the front 7...  It was all beautifully done and well documented in high def on the scoreboard video screen, but what a buzzkill.  I've got no alternative ideas, other than doing it after the game, which introduces a whole new set of downsides.
Go To | Reply | Quote

Posted: Today 12:53 PM

Re: College Football Play-off is flawed; there is a better way 


assuming that most schools have finals around mId-December only 8 teams would actually be affected - the 8 quarterfinalist teams. once you lose, you're done and its back to school work. so the teams that lose in week 1 (16 of them) clean out their lockers the following Monday, then have 2 weeks or so until finals. the 8 teams that lose the second weeks have a week or so after locker cleanout. In the basketball tournament, the players take their studies witth them, and have to make time for study inbetween games. in football the games are on Saturday, so the kids study inbetweem practices during the week. as for the finalists playing 5 games, that already happens in FCS, d-2 and d-3, and the schools there have no problem with it. Further, as for the money problem, teams that dont make the playoffs get a share of the Conference payout-with 20 million going to qualifiers and 2 teams per conference minimum that means the non playoff schools split 40M minimum, and thats not including a bowl game payout. so those schools doubledip. I dont think you realize just  how much money we are taking about here. this is a multi-BILLION dollar annual revenue generator- as much as 4B per year,  where even the also rans make money for being in a conference or making the playoffs. in Short, it makes the BCS(250m) look like an lemonade stand, and dwarfs March Madness(800M).for teams that gets smaller payouts the amount the players get is also smaller. if UCF or UNLV make the playoffs by winning their division they get 20M, they have a stretch where they make the playoffs regularly and win a game or 2, the deficit is likely gone. the further you go into the playoffs the bigger your payout. 4 teams is dipping your toe in the pool water while the other levels are already splashing around and enjoying themselves. With just 12 regular season games, the same devaluation of the regular season that you se in basketball will not happen. basketball has 30 or so, so losing 1 game isnt killer, heck you have small schools wth losing records like 16-20 get in , because they won ther tourney. if a team goes 7-6 and wins thier conference, they make the show but will be seeded last and have to play the 1 team. stuff like that happens at every level, in WI high school football this year a 3-6 team made the playoffs because there were not enough teams with winning records. fluky stuff happens, the Saints made the NFL  playoffs in 2010 with a 7-9 record. the 7-6 team  did what was required of them, win their conference.
Go To | Reply | Quote