Sid, I think you are right in the sense that prior to Charlie Weis the media was saying that Notre Dame was not relevent on the College scene and may never be again. However I think with Charlie Weis at the helm that has been put aside. But as you say that probably got lost to me in as white noise while I was hearing the talking heads at ESPN knock the Gators. If the Gators play OSU then I'm looking foward to two bowl games, the championship game with OSU of course and the Notre Dame matchup with LSU in the Sugar. If we do not play OSU then I only have interest in one, the Sugar with Florida and Notre Dame. And I hope you take that as the compliment that it is, not that I'll root for Notre Dame over an SEC team but for sure that's a game I have marked as high interest either way.
Hey Bill, Honestly...I haven't watched much espn beyond some college games. I haven't heard the direct criticsm of Florida but I've heard mostly the talk between USC and Michigan. So really the talk i've heard had not much to deal with Florida...just USC. The thing that really stinks for me is this is the 2nd time i've had to deal with politics in college football...the last was Nebraska's lobbying to get a share of Michigans National Championship! Now I don't have a problem with Florida going but on the other hand precedence has been set from the past that says that Michigan has every opportunity to play OSU again! This is why I am so desperate for others to see what is the most obvious thing that has to happen in college football...GIVE ME MY PLAYOFF!!! Matt in INdy Go Blue! stupid colts!
When has there been a rematch in the BCS MNC title game? Furthermore .... aren't conference championship games a step in the direction of a playoff and shouldn't teams participating in same be given consideration as having played into the MNC game vis-a-vis those teams who haven't (participated in a conference championship game)?
Matt, I think everybody wants a playoff and is frustrated that artifical roadblocks keep getting put up to prevent the playoff. No doubt if we had a 4/8/12/16 team playoff the 5/9/13/17 teams would be howling that they deserved to be in, but in the end at least it'd all be settled on the field and we'd have a great end to the season. Terry
Terry, There has always been that team that cries when it is left out...but when you set the rules and you don't win your games than there is no one to blame but yourself. Now a 4 team playoff would be too small and 16 may be too much, I think 12 pretty much cuts it off. And I like 12 because it seems to be a number that has been set as a cutoff in the past. Like ND i think having to be ranked in the top 12 for a BCS bid or something like that. Plus 12 teams means you can have 6 BCS bowl games which would make the sponsers happy and keep the money flowing for something like this. Sixteen teams, well honestly it could work but that would mean 8 BCS bowl games, if they can make it work...then fine! I'm still hoping Michigan gets in just for the fact that there will be too many people crying and force the playoff system quickly. Matt in INdy
Unless I am missing something, 12 teams would not work. After the first round, 6 teams are left. After the second round, 3 teams are left... who plays who then? It would have to be 4, 8, or 16 teams.
I think in an earlier post, perhaps in another topic, Matt suggested giving the top 4 rated teams a 1st round bye and playing the games over 4 weekends with the major bowl games mixed in somehow.
Gaterz <r><QUOTE><s> </e></QUOTE> absolutely not.<br/> <br/> a conference title game is not realistic in all conferences. why give those conference who sell out their academic integrity so that they can attain 'super conference' status a reward?<br/> <br/> Although its been a while since we've spoken, if memory serves you're a bright candle intellectually. Surely you can appreciate that this is student suppose to be about student athletes. Some conferences simply cannot add enough teams without selling out their perceived academic integrity.<br/> <br/> You're suggesting that those teams who play a conference title game be given a 'reward' for doing so, and I believe that is incorrect. Its the wrong message to send. IMHO.</r>
Tom, Bill, I really wouldn't care if it was 8 teams, 12 was on my mind with the top 4 getting a bye. With the updated BCS poll...here are the top 16 teams, everyone should be able to figure out who would play who with either 8, 12, or 16 teams...play it out yourself...the first week wouldn't be much to write home about but the following weekends would be interesting. Higher ranked teams getting home games would certainly make the regular season worth something. Corey...with super conferences, this begs the old unforgiven thing to ask for buuutttt...how about ND joining the B10? It certainly would be a better fit than the Big East in everything but football. Nawwww...never going to happen. Matt in INdy
Corey Help me with the math ...... how many teams would the Big-10/11 be required to add to implement a confernece championship game? How many would the PAC-10 be required to add to implement a conference championship game. Then ....... how would the academics of the players for the existing conference teams and the new conference teams be adversly impacted by the addition of the conference title game, especially if the NCAA agreed to roll back the regular season schedule to 11 (now time shortened) games?
What he's referring to is that the PAC10 institutions are all top academic schools and that they can't just add any old school to the conference they have to be a fit academically as well as athletically....which is of course a pant load since they took Az State with no problems. The same for the B10, they don't want to add just any school, they want one that fits with them academically as well. I have no clue as to why academics is such a big portion of the equation since it's athletics we are talking about. But truthfully I don't think the PAC10 should expand anyhow, there aren't any teams in non-BCS conferences that would make a whole lot of sense anyhow. Some have said Colorado and BYU, but Colorado fits nicely in the B12 and BYU I just don't see it. For the B10 some have intimated that Syracuse and Pitt would be good fits, but I doubt if JoePa would allow Pitt in and I can't see Syracuse geographically as a good fit. Some have said Missouri would be a good fit, but I don't see the point for Missouri.
WRT the Big-10/11 ... seems ND would be a natural choice but ...... that would serve to diminish ND's annual shot at a BCS berth, probably cost ND some TV $$$$, and eliminate the "two best teams are from one conference" argument. Or, don't add any teams and don't split into divisions ... just take the two best teams at the end of the season and have them play for the conference title. This year ..... the PAC-10 would have Cal and USC in the title game and the Big-10/11 would have its rematch of OSU and UMich, assume UMich get's the nod over Wisc due to their head-to-head in the regular season.
Well I got the answer to my question about Gary Danielson. He has a home in Fla. now that he covers the SEC. He was on ESPN radio and indicated that he is trying to remain consistant. He disagreed with Neb. and OK going to the Championship game when they didn't win their conference title and feels that he is being consistant by taking the same position with Mich. I'll just point out that the prior cases were not the same as here. In neither case was the no. 1 team from the same conference. Theoretically the two best teams in the country could come from the same conference.It's funny but we've had a number of NCAA BB champions who didn'tw win their own conference. No one cares.
I wouldn't care if there was a playoff and that's the way it ended up. But nobody can convince me that Mich is "clearly" the #2 team in the country, that's just the ESPN/ABC BS line that they have been touting since they beat Notre Dame. They are a great team, but I think that Fla has just as much claim to #2 as UM does.
There's a big difference between a 6-game 64-team post season tournament where 1/6 of all Div 1 basketball teams get into the tourney and a +1 BCS title game. If there was a post season tourney for Div 1A football with approx 20 teams getting in (1/6 of the 116 or so teams) ....... it would be impossible to have only conference champs in the tourney. Seems there's a little difficulty in deciding if football should have a mythical national champion or a post season tourney champ. Which format truly yields/identifies "the best team in the nation" for that season?
Clearly the tournament identifies the "best" team in the tournament, as we have seen in the Final Four the Nat'l Champion is not always one of the pre-tournament #1 seeds. The current football system rewards the team that has had the best season, and if we went to a playoff...esp a 16 team playoff we would have some champions that would not have had the best season. Sort of like the wildcard in other sports wining the championship. Get hot at the end!
Corey, here's an interview with Gary Danielson about his comments during the SEC Championship Sat niight. He directly addresses ESPN/ABC and their campaign Here's a link to the thread Gary Danielson Interview