What is the impact on bowl games with the realignment?

FB Post season has sort of become like Basketball.

NCAA Tournament/FB Playoffs
Your main goal is to get into the Big Tournament that crowns the recognized champ.

NIT/BCS Bowls
If you fail to make it, there's always That Other Thing.
That Other Thing used to be big. Really big. In fact once upon a time it crowned champions. Now it only matters to the fans of the schools participating who tell themselves "well...its a paycheck and post season experience to build on for next year"

CBI/Non-BCS Bowls

Nobody but the most die hard fans care. Only valuable to hot seat coaches who desperately want to be able to say "well I technically made the post season!"

(03-17-2013 01:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  FB Post season has sort of become like Basketball.

NCAA Tournament/FB Playoffs
Your main goal is to get into the Big Tournament that crowns the recognized champ.

NIT/BCS Bowls
If you fail to make it, there's always That Other Thing.
That Other Thing used to be big. Really big. In fact once upon a time it crowned champions. Now it only matters to the fans of the schools participating who tell themselves "well...its a paycheck and post season experience to build on for next year"

CBI/Non-BCS Bowls

Nobody but the most die hard fans care. Only valuable to hot seat coaches who desperately want to be able to say "well I technically made the post season!"

Not a bad comparison. Pretty accurate really.

(03-17-2013 02:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 01:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  FB Post season has sort of become like Basketball.

NCAA Tournament/FB Playoffs
Your main goal is to get into the Big Tournament that crowns the recognized champ.

NIT/BCS Bowls
If you fail to make it, there's always That Other Thing.
That Other Thing used to be big. Really big. In fact once upon a time it crowned champions. Now it only matters to the fans of the schools participating who tell themselves "well...its a paycheck and post season experience to build on for next year"

CBI/Non-BCS Bowls

Nobody but the most die hard fans care. Only valuable to hot seat coaches who desperately want to be able to say "well I technically made the post season!"

Not a bad comparison. Pretty accurate really.

It would be accurate if the NCAA and NIT tournaments you were talking about were circa 1945.

(03-17-2013 01:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  FB Post season has sort of become like Basketball.

NCAA Tournament/FB Playoffs
Your main goal is to get into the Big Tournament that crowns the recognized champ.

NIT/BCS Bowls
If you fail to make it, there's always That Other Thing.
That Other Thing used to be big. Really big. In fact once upon a time it crowned champions. Now it only matters to the fans of the schools participating who tell themselves "well...its a paycheck and post season experience to build on for next year"

CBI/Non-BCS Bowls

Nobody but the most die hard fans care. Only valuable to hot seat coaches who desperately want to be able to say "well I technically made the post season!"

Somewhat accurate, but the NIT is equivalent to the Music City or BBVA Compass bowls. There is still something to be said for going to a BCS bowl.

There is no comparison. All the bowls are a one game event with no home team. Making a bowl game of any kind is still a huge deal for any school and they get to be the focus of events surrounding the bowl for most of a week. Even the lower tier bowls get prime television exposure.

Many teams elect to skip the CBI and CIT but few if any teams would vote to skip a bowl game at any level.

I have a difficult time understanding (or supporting) any CFB championship system other than the original system where the media just voted after the bowls. I'm completely against a playoff. Extra late-season games just favor the SEC even more, because of their depth advantage. That conference's power teams have figured out how to game the system such that they can carry more scholarship-caliber players than anyone else. It's called "grayshirting" and it's possible because of the high value that southern recruits attach to playing in the SEC.

Mike Slive et al. have no doubt sold the playoff concept as "fair," and mid-major fans seem to me to be embracing this vision. It's a trap, though. The likelihood of any mid-major football team going on a March Madness-style Cinderella run in football is remote. Football is not basketball. And frankly, I don't want "fair," I want a system where my school has better postseason options. "Fair" looks like Alabama /Auburn/LSU every year.

(03-18-2013 01:06 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I have a difficult time understanding (or supporting) any CFB championship system other than the original system where the media just voted after the bowls. I'm completely against a playoff. Extra late-season games just favor the SEC even more, because of their depth advantage. That conference's power teams have figured out how to game the system such that they can carry more scholarship-caliber players than anyone else. It's called "grayshirting" and it's possible because of the high value that southern recruits attach to playing in the SEC.

Mike Slive et al. have no doubt sold the playoff concept as "fair," and mid-major fans seem to me to be embracing this vision. It's a trap, though. The likelihood of any mid-major football team going on a March Madness-style Cinderella run in football is remote. Football is not basketball. And frankly, I don't want "fair," I want a system where my school has better postseason options. "Fair" looks like Alabama /Auburn/LSU every year.

As it it currently stands, you are likley correct. I think the mid-major thinking is that once the sytem is installed, expansion is going to happen. First to 8 then maybe everntually to 16. Basically, its the classic camels nose argument.

(03-18-2013 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 01:06 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I have a difficult time understanding (or supporting) any CFB championship system other than the original system where the media just voted after the bowls. I'm completely against a playoff. Extra late-season games just favor the SEC even more, because of their depth advantage. That conference's power teams have figured out how to game the system such that they can carry more scholarship-caliber players than anyone else. It's called "grayshirting" and it's possible because of the high value that southern recruits attach to playing in the SEC.

Mike Slive et al. have no doubt sold the playoff concept as "fair," and mid-major fans seem to me to be embracing this vision. It's a trap, though. The likelihood of any mid-major football team going on a March Madness-style Cinderella run in football is remote. Football is not basketball. And frankly, I don't want "fair," I want a system where my school has better postseason options. "Fair" looks like Alabama /Auburn/LSU every year.

As it it currently stands, you are likley correct. I think the mid-major thinking is that once the sytem is installed, expansion is going to happen. First to 8 then maybe everntually to 16. Basically, its the classic camels nose argument.

Let's say we get a 16-team playoff. It would take four games to win it all. An SEC team is more likely to have the depth to manage that than any other team, because of grayshirting. Teams that could have beaten, say, Bama on week one won't be able to on week 15 or 16 because SEC teams are deeper (because of grayshirting). The bigger the playoff, the greater the pro-SEC bias.

The best scenario for a mid-major team to win the national championship was the old way, i.e. the way that BYU did it. My thought is that there should be enough parity in FBS that if you go undefeated, you win it all. If it weren't for the MAC, Banowsky's indiscriminate expansion, the SBC, and all the other wannabes, we could handle things that way. Everyone would be better off, except the SEC (anda bunch of bottomfeeders who ought to be FCS anyway).

(03-18-2013 01:49 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 01:06 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I have a difficult time understanding (or supporting) any CFB championship system other than the original system where the media just voted after the bowls. I'm completely against a playoff. Extra late-season games just favor the SEC even more, because of their depth advantage. That conference's power teams have figured out how to game the system such that they can carry more scholarship-caliber players than anyone else. It's called "grayshirting" and it's possible because of the high value that southern recruits attach to playing in the SEC.

Mike Slive et al. have no doubt sold the playoff concept as "fair," and mid-major fans seem to me to be embracing this vision. It's a trap, though. The likelihood of any mid-major football team going on a March Madness-style Cinderella run in football is remote. Football is not basketball. And frankly, I don't want "fair," I want a system where my school has better postseason options. "Fair" looks like Alabama /Auburn/LSU every year.

As it it currently stands, you are likley correct. I think the mid-major thinking is that once the sytem is installed, expansion is going to happen. First to 8 then maybe everntually to 16. Basically, its the classic camels nose argument.

Let's say we get a 16-team playoff. It would take four games to win it all. An SEC team is more likely to have the depth to manage that than any other team, because of grayshirting. Teams that could have beaten, say, Bama on week one won't be able to on week 15 or 16 because SEC teams are deeper (because of grayshirting). The bigger the playoff, the greater the pro-SEC bias.

The best scenario for a mid-major team to win the national championship was the old way, i.e. the way that BYU did it. My thought is that there should be enough parity in FBS that if you go undefeated, you win it all. If it weren't for the MAC, Banowsky's indiscriminate expansion, the SBC, and all the other wannabes, we could handle things that way. Everyone would be better off, except the SEC (anda bunch of bottomfeeders who ought to be FCS anyway).

Andre is absolutely right as to the depth issue. Not sure it is because of gray shirting as much as it is the grandeur of playing in the SEC, something that kids, in the deep south particularly, have been brainwashed to believe. Kids have been convinced that it is better to sign with an SEC school and sit on the bench for 4 years and play some as a 5th year senior than to go to another non SEC school and play/start as a Sophmore. There are kids every year who are offered scholarships from schools in the non Contract Bowl conferences who turn them down and choose to walk on at an SEC school.

Most bowl games will draw a larger TV audience than most any regular season NCAA basketball game so that is one difference right there.

Most bowl games give you three to six week advance notice and as Crump noted are a single game event. So fans have plenty of time to plan and go have fun. Few bowl games interfere with K-12 school schedules or college schedules so travel is easier for students and parents with younger kids. The games also tend to overlap the time period when most people already planned to be off work.

That makes them a very different event from the post-season basketball games.

(03-18-2013 01:49 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The best scenario for a mid-major team to win the national championship was the old way, i.e. the way that BYU did it. My thought is that there should be enough parity in FBS that if you go undefeated, you win it all. If it weren't for the MAC, Banowsky's indiscriminate expansion, the SBC, and all the other wannabes, we could handle things that way. Everyone would be better off, except the SEC (anda bunch of bottomfeeders who ought to be FCS anyway).

So a championship system that rewards the SEC is bad because they have too much money and tradition to compete with. But FBS expansion is bad because, I guess, those schools don't have money and tradition.

I'm not sure who exactly you're trying to persuade here.

If you want to win a Championship on a semi-level playing field, join the Football Championship Subdivision.

You say "everyone would be better off", but who exactly would be better off? USM and who else?

(03-19-2013 09:40 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 01:49 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The best scenario for a mid-major team to win the national championship was the old way, i.e. the way that BYU did it. My thought is that there should be enough parity in FBS that if you go undefeated, you win it all. If it weren't for the MAC, Banowsky's indiscriminate expansion, the SBC, and all the other wannabes, we could handle things that way. Everyone would be better off, except the SEC (anda bunch of bottomfeeders who ought to be FCS anyway).

So a championship system that rewards the SEC is bad because they have too much money and tradition to compete with. But FBS expansion is bad because, I guess, those schools don't have money and tradition.

I'm not sure who exactly you're trying to persuade here.

If you want to win a Championship on a semi-level playing field, join the Football Championship Subdivision.

You say "everyone would be better off", but who exactly would be better off? USM and who else?

I said "everyone would be better off except the SEC" and FBS bottom-feeders. So, I think ECU would be better off. They could go, say, 14-0 with maybe a couple of ACC victories and get national championship consideration (as BYU did in '84). That's the model I'm espousing.

I think we need to respect tradition enough to keep FBS from having 150+ teams (resulting in ESPN getting to define the true top tier on a de facto basis). However, we do not want to respect it so much that we crown Alabama, LSU, or Florida champion every single year like the Harlem Globetrotters.

Where's the happy medium? Well, it would seem that we were pretty close in 1984. I'm biased, because USM was in IA back then, and a whole lot of the other teams that have diluted FBS (and forced the AQ / non-AQ distinction) were not. But at the same time, there are a lot of things in that 1984 system that have general appeal. 100 teams is about right for the top tier. More than that is (as we've seen) too many to legitimately compete for one championship, too many for fans to remember, and too many for the media to cover.

Should BYU win it all if they go undefeated? Yes; the SEC should just have to accept that. Should FIU or South Alabama? No; I'm sorry, but that's my take on things. And it was reality until the SEC usurped the NCAA under the guise of "fairness."

EDIT: I'd also be careful about just lumping the SEC's advantages into the "tradition " category. A lot of what Bama does differently is not tradition, it's just completely out of line: grayshirting, poisoning Auburn's trees, sexually assaulting a drunk LSU fan...

(03-19-2013 12:01 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  You say "everyone would be better off", but who exactly would be better off? USM and who else?

Where's the happy medium? [/quote]

Ok, I can see an argument for a happy medium.

Quote:Well, it would seem that we were pretty close in 1984. I'm biased, because USM was in IA back then, and a whole lot of the other teams that have diluted FBS (and forced the AQ / non-AQ distinction) were not. But at the same time, there are a lot of things in that 1984 system that have general appeal. 100 teams is about right for the top tier.

I see your general argument, but a lot of what you call bottom-feeders were "I-A" in 1984, but they weren't really part of "major college football". The PCAA(Big West) and the MAC were I-A, maybe the Southland? I'd argue that there were really about 80 schools in "major college football"--the 60-odd CFA schools, the Big Ten and PAC-10. BYU and the WAC were part of that group, and I'm pretty sure Southern Miss was, too, but I can't really find out who the 20 or so independents were.



More than that is (as we've seen) too many to legitimately compete for one championship, too many for fans to remember, and too many for the media to cover.

Quote:Should BYU win it all if they go undefeated? Yes; the SEC should just have to accept that. Should FIU or South Alabama? No; I'm sorry, but that's my take on things. And it was reality until the SEC usurped the NCAA under the guise of "fairness."

I was a kid in the northeast, so the college football championship wasn't on my radar, but did the Alabamas and Michigan and Texases accept the BYU championship as real? Or did it not really count because they only beat a 6-5 Michigan team?

BYU only won the national title because every other contender lost one or more games.

(03-19-2013 12:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  BYU only won the national title because every other contender lost one or more games.

Yeah, but you could almost always say that when there's one undefeated team. Was the 1984 BYU title seen as lesser than the 1983 or 1985 titles, is what I meant.

(03-19-2013 12:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:01 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  You say "everyone would be better off", but who exactly would be better off? USM and who else?

Where's the happy medium?

Ok, I can see an argument for a happy medium.

Quote:Well, it would seem that we were pretty close in 1984. I'm biased, because USM was in IA back then, and a whole lot of the other teams that have diluted FBS (and forced the AQ / non-AQ distinction) were not. But at the same time, there are a lot of things in that 1984 system that have general appeal. 100 teams is about right for the top tier.

I see your general argument, but a lot of what you call bottom-feeders were "I-A" in 1984, but they weren't really part of "major college football". The PCAA(Big West) and the MAC were I-A, maybe the Southland? I'd argue that there were really about 80 schools in "major college football"--the 60-odd CFA schools, the Big Ten and PAC-10. BYU and the WAC were part of that group, and I'm pretty sure Southern Miss was, too, but I can't really find out who the 20 or so independents were.



More than that is (as we've seen) too many to legitimately compete for one championship, too many for fans to remember, and too many for the media to cover.

Quote:Should BYU win it all if they go undefeated? Yes; the SEC should just have to accept that. Should FIU or South Alabama? No; I'm sorry, but that's my take on things. And it was reality until the SEC usurped the NCAA under the guise of "fairness."

I was a kid in the northeast, so the college football championship wasn't on my radar, but did the Alabamas and Michigan and Texases accept the BYU championship as real? Or did it not really count because they only beat a 6-5 Michigan team?

The MAC and PCAC being IA back then really is a flaw in my argument. I realize that. If you look at my posts, I seldom have nice things to say about the MAC, and this is why. They were the original IA impostor, and just as the SBC cheapens FBS now, the MAC (and, to a lesser extent, the PCAC /Big West) did it back then.

The SEC fans hated that '84 championship, but it's a done deal. There's no other claimant that I know of.

(03-19-2013 12:30 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The MAC and PCAC being IA back then really is a flaw in my argument. I realize that. If you look at my posts, I seldom have nice things to say about the MAC, and this is why. They were the original IA impostor, and just as the SBC cheapens FBS now, the MAC (and, to a lesser extent, the PCAC /Big West) did it back then.

The SEC fans hated that '84 championship, but it's a done deal. There's no other claimant that I know of.

Please oh great enlightened one pray tell how does Arkansas State winning 20 of the last 26, with the second longest winning streak in the nation, and 26,000 customers in the stands "cheapen" FBS football?

(03-19-2013 12:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:30 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The MAC and PCAC being IA back then really is a flaw in my argument. I realize that. If you look at my posts, I seldom have nice things to say about the MAC, and this is why. They were the original IA impostor, and just as the SBC cheapens FBS now, the MAC (and, to a lesser extent, the PCAC /Big West) did it back then.

The SEC fans hated that '84 championship, but it's a done deal. There's no other claimant that I know of.

Please oh great enlightened one pray tell how does Arkansas State winning 20 of the last 26, with the second longest winning streak in the nation, and 26,000 customers in the stands "cheapen" FBS football?

I say that because ASU will never win a top-tier championship under the current system, and everyone knows it, and that cheapens the "FBS" designation.

In 1984, if a team went undefeated, it got 1st place votes... with the possible exception of the MAC/PCAC.

(03-19-2013 12:37 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2013 12:30 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The MAC and PCAC being IA back then really is a flaw in my argument. I realize that. If you look at my posts, I seldom have nice things to say about the MAC, and this is why. They were the original IA impostor, and just as the SBC cheapens FBS now, the MAC (and, to a lesser extent, the PCAC /Big West) did it back then.

The SEC fans hated that '84 championship, but it's a done deal. There's no other claimant that I know of.

Please oh great enlightened one pray tell how does Arkansas State winning 20 of the last 26, with the second longest winning streak in the nation, and 26,000 customers in the stands "cheapen" FBS football?

I say that because ASU will never win a top-tier championship under the current system, and everyone knows it, and that cheapens the "FBS" designation.

In 1984, if a team went undefeated, it got 1st place votes... with the possible exception of the MAC/PCAC.

Half of the teams in the SEC will never win the championship either.