Bowl Games

[Eric]

[Spence]

Nevertheless, I dont' see how 64-teams is over-represenatation. I can think of several 'good' teams that weren't selected to a bowl. Someone mentioned C. Michigan, but unless I'm mistaken W. Michigan wasn't invited, either. And, in the Sun-Belt, two teams (Louisiana Tech & Louisiana-Monroe) were both denied an invitation. Now we are at 60.

There aren't 4 more teams legitimately qualified for a bowl bid? Well, I can think of two, off the top of my head, Louisana Tech (7-4) and New Mexico (6-5). We've likely run the 'gamut' of teams, not selected, that 'earned' a bid, but that puts us at 62. If we can't find two teams, then just give USC & Texas a 'bye'.

Your definition of "earned" and mine are very different. Schools are facing losing schollies now, with the new NCAA requirements. Lets take the players out of class more. Basketball and football are very different sports when it comes to the logistics of what it takes to travel.

Lets try and keep the bowl season special. If anything they should take away some bowls and make it harder to get to a bowl.

[colorado_loves_football]

I think I agree with David. I guess more bowls are okay with me as long the teams have winning records. now that the season is 12 games, should a 6-6 team be let into a bowl? or only 7-5 teams? I think there would be a problem finding enough 7-5 teams to fill all the slots, so I guess I will go with 6-6 teams being allowed into the small bowls. Plus the big plus about the bowl system is that it allows the little teams a chance at the post season.

I'm glad you reference the '12th' game because that's essentially how I propose the 64-team field be selected (through a 12th game). That way the 'playoffs' don't officially begin until after the 32 teams are 'selected' through competitive play. The 12th game isn't likely to happen every year, anyway, this would be one way to assure 64 teams of a '12th game' every year. The remaining 56 or so teams would have to 'sit out' or possibly play in an 'alternate' bracket (similar I suppose to the NIT?).

Anyway, once you have 32 teams 'in the mix' it becomes a fairly simple matter of scheduling the 'existing' bowls to accomodate them. 32 teams requires 31 games, beginning to end. That's 28 (how many there are now), plus two 'semi-final' and one 'championship' game, pinned on at the end. The present bowl 'formula' can still be applied, almost without variation! Tell me that's not an intelligent use of the bowls.

The 4 'major' bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange) would still be 'reserved' for Jan 1. or thereabouts. All other New Year's Day bowls would be pushed back, to accomodate the 'new' arrangement.

So, instead of 6 weeks of bowl games, we are talking about a month or so of bowls, followed by two semi-finals, and one championship game. All-in-all not a bad way to 'preserve' the bowls as presently organized.

Guys, what are we talking about here? A 64 team playoff would require 6 weeks to do. So if you start in the 20s of December, you'll end up in February. That is too long for football!

You seriously think that UL Lafayette "earned" a bid to a bowl game? You're saying the Ragin' Cajuns were snubbed this year?

It would take 6 weeks; that's too long. If you're going to do a playoff, you'd have to take 16 teams at most. The thing with bowl games is it's one and done. There aren't any more games to be played after that one takes place for that specific team. The reason I don't have a problem with 56 teams getting in is that it doesn't take 6 weeks to play. I think what you're asking for is a little unrealistic, CLF.

You maybe are putting words in my mouth, but yes I think Louisiana-Layayette 'earned' the opportunity to represent itself in a bowl, at least as much as Arkansas St, did. I never said they were 'snubbed' but in the Sun Belt, there were a LOT of people who thought they deserved a bowl invitation. Does that answer your question?

I believe you said 6 weeks was 'far too long' to play competitive football.
I think you are wrong. The first game would likely be played 1st week December, similar I suppose to how the confernece championships are scheduled. At the latest we are talking December 7. (a date that will live in infamy).

Add three weeks to that, we are talking December 28, at the latest! That would select the 8-team 'field' to the BCS. Assuming we give everyone a week's vacation (a reasonable assumption). That would put the BCS somewhere around January 14 (again at the latest). There's absolutely no way it would extend into Februrary, unless they somehow wanted to coordinate it with the Super Bowl (not that bad an idea, really).

[Eric]

If my memory serves me correctly, the New Orleans Bowl that kicked off the bowl season, started on the 22nd of December.

If you pushed it back that far, it could work, but I'm referring to the way things are scheduled today.

Does A LOT of people account for anybody outside of Lafayette, Louisiana? They didn't deserve it as much as Arkansas State did because the Indians actually WON the conference via tiebreaker; even when the teams tied, ASU had the tiebreakers, therefore they are the champions of the Sun Belt and UL Lafayette isn't. End of story. As much as I wish to see ULL do well, I don't think anybody outside of Lafayette thinks the Ragin' Cajuns deserve a bowl bid.

[Eric]

Another note, I still think the one-and-done scenario still irks me. You give a team that short of notice and WHAM, see-ya. The team has a week or so to enjoy the host city and that wouldn't happen with a playoff.

I think supporters of a playoff are forgetting the fact that these are STUDENT ATHLETES.

[Eric]

One more thing, I think pushing it back that far would be unrealistic; it's not going to happen.

[colorado_loves_football]

Another note, I still think the one-and-done scenario still irks me. You give a team that short of notice and WHAM, see-ya. The team has a week or so to enjoy the host city and that wouldn't happen with a playoff.

I think supporters of a playoff are forgetting the fact that these are STUDENT ATHLETES.

I actually agree with you, in principle with respect to your arguments, believe it or not.

I was simply trying to figure out a way to utilize the present bowl structure in such a capacity that would allow any team 'fair' opportunity to play for a national championship. If it isn't practical, then it shouldn't be implemented.

Nevertheless it is one way to 'preserve' the bowls, while also assuring them of 'competitive' pairings of teams, every year. I only utilize the 64-team 'model' because it gives more teams 'fair' opportunity. It could be applied with 32 teams, easier-even, than with 64, so I still think it's one 'option' while keeping the bowls 'alive'.

You imply that somehow there isn't sufficient time, within the existing schedule. I'm not sure I agree with you entirely. I understand these guys need time to attend class and other such things, but there are already games scheduled as late as December 7, every year.

Following final exams, those guys are mostly 'free'. That means, that December 20 is probably available for the '2nd' round. Even if you are correct that bowls would'nt want to reschedule, they could still play 8 games on or around Jan. 1. Now, we are talking about 7 games left, to select a national champion. I think you can throw scheduling out the window at this point. Play the national championship alongside the Super Bowl. People might object to the 'over-extended' season, but I doubt the players would mind.

But, if you think that's an impractical arrangment, then we can always apply the 'competitive' BCS model (ten teams, arranged in a playoff format). That's the proposal I support, anyway.

[Eric]

I just don't think it would be the best thing for college football. The conference championship games are played that late, I think, but there is a 2 week layoff period. If college football were to do so, it must be with 16 teams.

My knock on a playoff is that it would make the bowl season be like what the NIT is to basketball--meaningless.

[colorado_loves_football]

I just don't think it would be the best thing for college football. The conference championship games are played that late, I think, but there is a 2 week layoff period. If college football were to do so, it must be with 16 teams.

My knock on a playoff is that it would make the bowl season be like what the NIT is to basketball--meaningless.

Again I'm not sure I agree with you entirely.
But, let's reference the NCAA basketball bracket, since that's the closest approximation we have to a 'playoff' in I-A.
First of all, 65 teams are represented. And, unless I'm mistaken, the whole thing happens over a period of approximately one month beginning-to-end. It works, and the end result is one team, standing alone at the top.
With reference to I-A football, obviously we are dealing with a different 'banana' so-to-speak. We have to work around a schedule, that includes final exams.
But, with a 12th game in place, that might give some 'flexibility', assuming that week still falls in November (I'm assuming it does).

The 'preliminary' round could conceivably be played 1st week, December. What that means, is that, similar to how the NCAA schedules the first two games 'back-to-back' a similar arrangment might exist for football.

Now, after final exams, we could conceivably scedule the 16 or so games, needed somewhere around December 20 (that's in agreement with when New Orleans, GMAC Bowls are played). The next 'round' of bowls need not happen until around Jan. 1. Those 8 games would select the 'Final Four'. Again, assuming a 'layoff' to allow those teams some 'down time', it would appear to me, that the NCAA could still schedule them at or around Jan 14. The championship game could follow one week later, same location (as in the NCAA's).

So, as much as I maybe agree with you, in principle, I disagree with you that it's somehow 'impractical', or 'impossible'. I think it's not only possible, it becomes highly probable, if confernece championship games are eliminated, and a 12th game is 'included' whereby 64/120 teams are represented. The remaining 56 or so teams likely aren't good enough, and therefore don't deserve a spot, so I'm not sure how the NIT comes into play.

[mountainman]

Geeeeeeez. I would say that confirms what I have suspected from the beginning.

[Spence]

Again I'm not sure I agree with you entirely.
But, let's reference the NCAA basketball bracket, since that's the closest approximation we have to a 'playoff' in I-A.
First of all, 65 teams are represented. And, unless I'm mistaken, the whole thing happens over a period of approximately one month beginning-to-end. It works, and the end result is one team, standing alone at the top.
With reference to I-A football, obviously we are dealing with a different 'banana' so-to-speak. We have to work around a schedule, that includes final exams.
But, with a 12th game in place, that might give some 'flexibility', assuming that week still falls in November (I'm assuming it does).

Basket ball plays more then one game a week. Football cannot play more then one a week.

The small amount of time between the final game and bowl practice is when players get to spend time with their families. Because most players take a light load in the fall, they must catch up in the summer to remain eligible. These guys spend 11+ months at the university, taking away a week or two that they actually get to spend time with their family is harsh for guys who don't get paid.

I-AA guys don't have that level of commitment. Neither does basketball. Playoff do not make since for D-1A football, they also wouldn't make a difference. Other then the smaller conferences going broke trying to compete. If D-1 would go to 18 games, schools would want more scholarship athletes to be able to play that sort of schedule. Since the best athletes go to the best schools the smaller schools would be left with a weaker pool of athletes to choose from, which would erase any advancement mid majors have made since the 85 scholarship rule was put in place.

[colorado_loves_football]

Basketball plays more then one game a week. Football cannot play more then one a week.

The small amount of time between the final game and bowl practice is when players get to spend time with their families. Because most players take a light load in the fall, they must catch up in the summer to remain eligible. These guys spend 11+ months at the university, taking away a week or two that they actually get to spend time with their family is harsh for guys who don't get paid.

I-AA guys don't have that level of commitment. Neither does basketball. Playoff do not make since for D-1A football, they also wouldn't make a difference. Other then the smaller conferences going broke trying to compete. If D-1 would go to 18 games, schools would want more scholarship athletes to be able to play that sort of schedule. Since the best athletes go to the best schools the smaller schools would be left with a weaker pool of athletes to choose from, which would erase any advancement mid majors have made since the 85 scholarship rule was put in place.

First of all I never proposed anything even remotely like that (playing more than one game a week). Makes me wonder if you read what I post, or it's possible I don't clarify my position, but regardless that was a misinterpretation on your part.

The reason I am comparing a 'hypothetical' playoff with the NCAA is simple, it's already being done, and so it makes sense to do a 'side-by-side' comparison of the two. Generally speaking the teams play two games, rest, play two, throughout the tournament. I was simply applying that 'model' in the context that after the regular season is over, there really is no reason I can think of to 'delay' a playoff. It could happen immediately after the final regular season game is played.

I referred to the 12th game because that could conceivably become a 'permanent' part of I-A football for numerous reasons. So, it really isn't such a 'stretch' to 'assume' the 12th game become a playoff game, if a 64-team format were to be adopted. Then, there is sufficient 'space' on the schedule to allow for a 13th game, prior to the semester's end. That's a fairly simple scheduling, applied.

I actually was 'wrong' when I stated 16 games would be played following the semester's end. Since only 16 teams would remain, 8 games would be played at, or around December 20. The 4 'BCS' games could be scheduled around New Year's. Then the final 3 games, could be scheduled sometime around Jan. 14. Yes, teams would necessarily have to play 13 consecutive games. Then they would have time off. It's not that different from what the NCAA does as applied to basketball.

If it's not practical, then make the BCS a competitive arrangement.

[Eric]

I still don't know what the problem is regarding the bowl system. I think a playoff would too "pro-lize" the game and take away what has made it so unique for so long. Last year, Utah's bowl win was just as valuable as Missouri's. I understand that getting to a January and a BCS bowl is better, but the December bowls are what makes the bowl season so cool.

[Eric]

1,000% in agreement. The BCS has more things to worry about than being heckled by TCU fans (not that CLF is being a "nuisance", but if you looked at some of these TCU message boards, it's crazy).

I never noticed your signature, but I love it! LSU won the national title, not USC. You can't split a national championship; either you won the national title or you didn't. LSU can say they did in 2003.

Another note, I can't really say that the BCS has even screwed up yet! I think Oklahoma should've gotten in both seasons because over the course of the year, they were clearly one of the top two teams in the country. Not Auburn or USC. USC in 2003 you could make a case for, but I wouldn't buy it. Up until that Kansas State game, OU was the #1 team in the country, and just because they lost later in the season doesn't mean that they should take a backseat to another team.

[Spence]

The only problems with the BCS system of determining the NC (not the BCS bowls in whole) is making certain we have #1 and #2 playing in the NC game, or the possiblity of having a #3 that is as good as #1 and/or #2.

The BCS should be concerned with those two problems rather than trying to include the Week Sisters of the Poor in their non-championship bowls.

Exactly! The only fair way to handle the bowls is to try and get the best teams in the right match ups.