Congress to get into act of Championship Game

[tazinib1]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/foo...-hearings_N.htm

[Kid Cid]

As messed up as the college football post season is, the US Government should have no say in how colleges govern themselves in non-academic matters and shouldn't have much to say about academic matters either. This is just disturbing.

[Square]

As messed up as the college football post season is, the US Government should have no say in how colleges govern themselves in non-academic matters and shouldn't have much to say about academic matters either. This is just disturbing.

It might be the only way to get any kind of tournament but I can see your point.

[Rockerbraves]

"I really feel that you can't leave it as is," Towns said. "Right now, if you ask what the No. 1 team is, a lot of people would say USC. Others would say Texas and if you ask anybody in the state of Utah, they would say their team was the best. I want to get a system that has credibility."

 

Granted a playoff would give us a tournament winner, but not a consensus #1 team. Just look at this season when we got a glance of what a playoff would be like in this year's SEC Championship game. Florida beat the #1 team and then turned around and beat the new #1 team yet not everyone is in agreement they are the number one team.

[wildcat2334]

"I really feel that you can't leave it as is," Towns said. "Right now, if you ask what the No. 1 team is, a lot of people would say USC. Others would say Texas and if you ask anybody in the state of Utah, they would say their team was the best. I want to get a system that has credibility."

 

Granted a playoff would give us a tournament winner, but not a consensus #1 team. Just look at this season when we got a glance of what a playoff would be like in this year's SEC Championship game. Florida beat the #1 team and then turned around and beat the new #1 team yet not everyone is in agreement they are the number one team.

 

 

Khloe, Kim and Kourtney Kardashian are you talking about

 

of course a playoff would give us a "consensus" #1 team. When it is decided on the field, no one has any right to an argument once they get beat - see NE last year, the Lakers, etc. Cmon dood- what exactly is yer point here........

 

A playoff is the answer - not too excited about congress getting involved tho.........

Edited January 15, 2009 by wildcat2334

[isleseeya]

very disturbing ..we have two wars we are involved in right now , a recession , a housing crisis and a hundred other more serious issues that Congress should be focused on ...College Football is not one of them

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Rocker, that post made no sense at all. Please revise and try again.

[Rockerbraves]

Khloe, Kim and Kourtney Kardashian are you talking about

 

of course a playoff would give us a "consensus" #1 team. When it is decided on the field, no one has any right to an argument once they get beat - see NE last year, the Lakers, etc. Cmon dood- what exactly is yer point here........

 

A playoff is the answer - not too excited about congress getting involved tho.........

What's your definition of consensus? Is it any different then the one we have today that means the majority agree?

 

Please don't tell me a playoff would create a 100% consensus that the best team in the nation is the one who wins a playoff.

 

Yeah the Giants won the Super Bowl last season, but their are people like myself who feel the Patriots were not only the best team last season, but perhaps the best in NFL history. Wouldn't surprise me if USC lost in the playoffs that someone would be screaming for a best 2 out of 3 format.

[wildcat2334]

What's your definition of consensus? Is it any different then the one we have today that means the majority agree?

 

Please don't tell me a playoff would create a 100% consensus that the best team in the nation is the one who wins a playoff.

 

Yeah the Giants won the Super Bowl last season, but their are people like myself who feel the Patriots were not only the best team last season, but perhaps the best in NFL history. Wouldn't surprise me if USC lost in the playoffs that someone would be screaming for a best 2 out of 3 format.

 

 

me thinks you never played sports- am I right?

 

no one cares if you think NE was the best team, they weren't- the NYG were

 

this is just stoopid and a waste of my time to even respond to this nonsense

[Rockerbraves]

me thinks you never played sports- am I right?

 

no one cares if you think NE was the best team, they weren't- the NYG were

 

this is just stoopid and a waste of my time to even respond to this nonsense

me thinks you never played golf- am I right?

 

no one cares that Padraig Harrington has won 2 majors in a row and 3 out of the last 6, he's not the consensus best golfer - Tiger is

 

So what if the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl that doesn't make them a better team just that day.

[wildcat2334]

me thinks you never played golf- am I right?

 

no one cares that Padraig Harrington has won 2 majors in a row and 3 out of the last 6, he's not the consensus best golfer - Tiger is

 

So what if the Giants beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl that doesn't make them a better team just that day.

 

 

wow, you just don't get it do you...........................

[isleseeya]

i stopped reading cause i find it impossible to beleive ..sorry Rocker as playoff does exactly what you say it will not

 

Playoff = True Natl Champion ...period

[Sgt Ryan]

Rocker making absolutely no sense. As usual

 

Wildcat actually learning to spell and make a point. Never going to happen

 

Watching these 2 tools battle it out. Time we will never get back again.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2009 by Sgt Ryan

[Kid Cid]

Rocker seriously, which bowl are you on the payroll of?

[tazinib1]

I don't think I've ever heard of anybody arguing against a playoff before.

[Rockerbraves]

I don't think I've ever heard of anybody arguing against a playoff before.

You must not be a Big 10 fan?

 

Despite the growing clamor for change, the Big Ten doesn't plan to budge.

 

As a conference without a championship game, Delany and others trumpet the significance of the regular season. Evidence: the Ohio State-Michigan matchup in 2006, which paired the nation's No. 1 and No. 2 teams in arguably the most-anticipated regular-season game in college football history.

 

"I'm anti-playoff, so the BCS as we see it today is best-case scenario," Purdue coach Joe Tiller said. "College football does have a playoff, and it occurs all year long. Every single game is significant. … I like the format. It's not perfect, but in college football we don't need a playoff. We've got a very healthy game. It's been very good for the Big Ten."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3404982

Edited January 15, 2009 by Rockerbraves

[godtomsatan]

I don't think I've ever heard of anybody arguing against a playoff before.

 

You don't listen to the conferences, the Presidents, most coaches, the "corporate partners" of the NCAA and their sponsorship of 34 bowl games that provide extra practice and profitability for 68 NCAA Div 1 programs, and the TV networks who get 200+ hours of live programming targeting the male 18-54 demographic during the busiest retail time of the year.

 

Everyone but a vocal portion of the fan base of college football has a vested interest in hanging onto the bowl system.

 

ETA: this isn't meant to defend the bowl system, but follow the money and the way its spread around and by whom its spread around in order to see that it isn't as quick a fix as picking 8 teams to play some football games.

Edited January 15, 2009 by godtomsatan

[godtomsatan]

As messed up as the college football post season is, the US Government should have no say in how colleges govern themselves in non-academic matters and shouldn't have much to say about academic matters either. This is just disturbing.

 

I don't know.....I saw a lot of GMAC, Citigroup, CapitalOne, and the likes who just got massive government bailout money sponsoring some bowl games.....

[tazinib1]

You must not be a Big 10 fan?

 

Despite the growing clamor for change, the Big Ten doesn't plan to budge.

 

As a conference without a championship game, Delany and others trumpet the significance of the regular season. Evidence: the Ohio State-Michigan matchup in 2006, which paired the nation's No. 1 and No. 2 teams in arguably the most-anticipated regular-season game in college football history.

 

"I'm anti-playoff, so the BCS as we see it today is best-case scenario," Purdue coach Joe Tiller said. "College football does have a playoff, and it occurs all year long. Every single game is significant. … I like the format. It's not perfect, but in college football we don't need a playoff. We've got a very healthy game. It's been very good for the Big Ten."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3404982

 

 

You don't listen to the conferences, the Presidents, most coaches, the "corporate partners" of the NCAA and their sponsorship of 34 bowl games that provide extra practice and profitability for 68 NCAA Div 1 programs, and the TV networks who get 200+ hours of live programming targeting the male 18-54 demographic during the busiest retail time of the year.

 

Everyone but a vocal portion of the fan base of college football has a vested interest in hanging onto the bowl system.

 

ETA: this isn't meant to defend the bowl system, but follow the money and the way its spread around and by whom its spread around in order to see that it isn't as quick a fix as picking 8 teams to play some football games.

 

lol ok ok let me revise that. I don't think I've ever heard anybody ON THE BOARDS argue against a playoff.

 

And no I'm not a Big 10 fan. It's all about the Pac-10!!

[Kid Cid]

You must not be a Big 10 fan?

 

Despite the growing clamor for change, the Big Ten doesn't plan to budge.

 

As a conference without a championship game, Delany and others trumpet the significance of the regular season. Evidence: the Ohio State-Michigan matchup in 2006, which paired the nation's No. 1 and No. 2 teams in arguably the most-anticipated regular-season game in college football history.

 

"I'm anti-playoff, so the BCS as we see it today is best-case scenario," Purdue coach Joe Tiller said. "College football does have a playoff, and it occurs all year long. Every single game is significant. … I like the format. It's not perfect, but in college football we don't need a playoff. We've got a very healthy game. It's been very good for the Big Ten."

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3404982

You shouldn't cherry pick your stories. Not every coach in the Big 10 likes the current system...

 

Penn State football coach Joe Paterno is lobbying again for major college football playoff, calling the reasons against it "bogus" less than three weeks after the Bowl Championship Series decided to maintain its current format for the foreseeable future.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3408761

[detlef]

You don't listen to the conferences, the Presidents, most coaches, the "corporate partners" of the NCAA and their sponsorship of 34 bowl games that provide extra practice and profitability for 68 NCAA Div 1 programs, and the TV networks who get 200+ hours of live programming targeting the male 18-54 demographic during the busiest retail time of the year.

 

Everyone but a vocal portion of the fan base of college football has a vested interest in hanging onto the bowl system.

 

ETA: this isn't meant to defend the bowl system, but follow the money and the way its spread around and by whom its spread around in order to see that it isn't as quick a fix as picking 8 teams to play some football games.

The "follow the money" argument just seems to me to be thin. That implies that there wouldn't be a ton of money to be made in a play-off. The first thing that should be dispelled is that it would make the lesser bowls irrelevant. Excuse me? How relevant is the Papa John's Bowl right now? How would the fact that there would now be several games among the nations elite leading up to an eventual champ make a random bowl in Alabama between two 8-4 teams mean any less than it does now?

 

So, to imply that any of the games below the current BCS bowls would lose some luster seems silly. Like now, they'll be an excuse for a fan base to party somewhere (typically) warm for a while and hope their team ends the season with a win.

 

The only difference is that a few games that currently pit elite teams against one another in a meaningless exhibition would now be quarters and semis. Honestly, are we to assume that there's more money to be made in this year's Utah/Bama Sugar Bowl than if it was a National semi? Last I time I checked, CBS pays a king's ransom for the rights to televise the final four.

 

I realize that you're not arguing on behalf of the bowl system. However, you're the umpteenth person to bring up the "follow the money" argument as if it is so obvious that it doesn't require explaining. Thing is, in light of the rather apparent money to be made in a play-off, I think it does.

 

Besides, that article unta posted about how bad the NCAA is being ripped off by the bowls is another damning argument. Why are NCAA execs so hell bent of protecting a system that makes a ton of money off a product they've developed and shares comparatively so little with them?

[Rockerbraves]

The "follow the money" argument just seems to me to be thin. That implies that there wouldn't be a ton of money to be made in a play-off. The first thing that should be dispelled is that it would make the lesser bowls irrelevant. Excuse me? How relevant is the Papa John's Bowl right now? How would the fact that there would now be several games among the nations elite leading up to an eventual champ make a random bowl in Alabama between two 8-4 teams mean any less than it does now?

 

So, to imply that any of the games below the current BCS bowls would lose some luster seems silly. Like now, they'll be an excuse for a fan base to party somewhere (typically) warm for a while and hope their team ends the season with a win.

Think back a few years. Now how big, relevant, prestigious or whatever word or words you want to use was the NIT in basketball before the extension of teams to the NCAA tournament. Now try to describe the NIT today using those same exact words.

 

Now do the same exercise with the Cotton Bowl prior and after the creation of the BCS.

[isleseeya]

Think back a few years. Now how big, relevant, prestigious or whatever word or words you want to use was the NIT in basketball before the extension of teams to the NCAA tournament. Now try to describe the NIT today using those same exact words.

 

Now do the same exercise with the Cotton Bowl prior and after the creation of the BCS.

 

NIT allows teams who could not make NCAA tournament a chance to play on and still win a title ...it also allows schools to make some money

 

but the NCAA tournament crowns a champion ...and there is no grey area

 

The bottom line is NCAA tournament works for college basketball while college football is a train wreck without a championship game & playoff

 

 

cant live in the past ...if we did , football players would still be wearing leather helmets

 

it should be time to fix what is broken and college football is broken ...

Edited January 16, 2009 by isleseeya

[godtomsatan]

I realize that you're not arguing on behalf of the bowl system. However, you're the umpteenth person to bring up the "follow the money" argument as if it is so obvious that it doesn't require explaining. Thing is, in light of the rather apparent money to be made in a play-off, I think it does.

 

There is no TV contract in place for a playoff, meanwhile, networks are paying billions to broadcast the current system, and reupped last year to extend it through 2014. I don't think you can criticize 'follow the money' by comparing it to hypothetical money. Doesn't wash.

 

Besides, that article unta posted about how bad the NCAA is being ripped off by the bowls is another damning argument. Why are NCAA execs so hell bent of protecting a system that makes a ton of money off a product they've developed and shares comparatively so little with them?

 

The NCAA has nothing to do with college football. They haven't since the advent of the BCS. The only thing they do is dole out division 1-A status to schools and have a set of rules to be followed by players, coaches, and administrators.

[detlef]

Think back a few years. Now how big, relevant, prestigious or whatever word or words you want to use was the NIT in basketball before the extension of teams to the NCAA tournament. Now try to describe the NIT today using those same exact words.

 

Now do the same exercise with the Cotton Bowl prior and after the creation of the BCS.

So, your argument about how a playoff would make the Cotton Bowl irrelevant is that it has already been made irrelevant? Not sure that's much of an argument.

 

Say there are 30 bowl games right now (not sure the exact number). One matters, the rest are irrelevant. If you did an 8 team play-off with quarterfinal rounds happening the week after conference championships and hosted by the top 4 seeds, these would have no impact on the bowls. Then, the winners move on to 2 of the current BCS bowls that act as semis and the losers are put into the bowl game pool along with all the teams not competing in the semis.

 

Bowl season progresses as normal with nearly all the games having absolutely no bearing on who's the champ. Which is basically what happens now. 2 of the current BCS site would be hosting games relevant to the championship, the others, as they do now, would be hosting exhibitions.

 

So, the net result is that two more "bowl games" will have special significance than do now. However, this should not be seen as something that will make the other games matter less because, by that logic, they don't matter now anyway.

 

There is no TV contract in place for a playoff, meanwhile, networks are paying billions to broadcast the current system, and reupped last year to extend it through 2014. I don't think you can criticize 'follow the money' by comparing it to hypothetical money. Doesn't wash.

There is absolutely no logic in what you just said and could be used as an argument to not make any changes to anything regardless of how profitable it is or could become.

 

The follow the money argument implies that they're making money that they wouldn't otherwise make if they changed. However, the change implies that there will be 4 games in early December that currently don't even exist that will be hugely relevant and major draws, plus two games in Jan 1 that are only exhibitions will be replaced by games that will be major draws to casual fans. At worst, the final will be just as big a draw as the current BCS Final.

 

There is simply no logical argument that this scenario will not be more profitable than the current system. That's why "follow the money" is not a valid argument.