He1nousOne
The One you Love to Hate.
Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
|
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-21-2013 04:31 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote: (08-21-2013 12:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: (08-21-2013 11:51 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote: That's true that even a limited format tournament (with conference divisional champions participating in a conference tournament which in turn feeds a national tournament) could result in a team with a record like 9-3 advancing to play for the national title. That would, as you note, detract from the "every game matters" history of college football. The BCS system (and prior to that, just the polls) haven't been perfect, but it did bring an element of urgency to every single game, which was unique to college football.
Having come from B1G roots, I can also empathize with your "Win the Big Ten, and then the Rose Bowl" mindset. I think that some B1G detractors simply come from a different perspective, and don't appreciate the B1G's long-term culture. I do wonder whether Meyer being at OSU will help elevate the level of play within the conference as a whole. It's not as though Michigan, for example, never had any national aspirations, but I think their focus has been on beating OSU and winning the B1G first and foremost. If they have to be much better to do that, that focus may help them (and other conference schools) raise their game to the point where there's more success at the national title level as well.
Every game will still matter because while 9-3 may get you there, you wont know that early in the season. I never understood this mentality where people look back at a situation and make this judgement without any value being given to the time period before that record was achieved. In the NFL, every game DOES matter especially when it comes down to division races. Every year we have many divisional races in the NFL coming down to a single game. That makes every game important and to say otherwise just isn't true.
So what if a 9-3 divisional champ beats an 11-1 divisional champ in the first round of conference tournament? That is an awesome game to watch! Sure there will be some traditionalists having to spout off negativities about it but this is the future. Hell, even Golf now has a Playoff to it in similar fashion as what NASCAR moved to. How crazy is that? That shows the fingerprint of the Networks. The same is happening now in College Football, it just takes longer due to the decentralization of control.
If a 9-3 team is playing the best ball at the end of the season in the Big Ten then THAT is the team that I want to represent the conference against all others, period. At the END of the season last year, of the teams eligible to represent us, Wisconsin was most certainly the strongest team. Their record didn't matter to me because their on the field performance showed me this reality. They had all of their injured players back, including their quarterback. They WERE the best team that the Big Ten could have fielded. Detractors of the conference will always try to find a way to take a shot at the Big Ten. It is jealousy of how strong the Big Ten will always be despite what it does on the field. The truth is Ohio State would have been our champion and gone on to big things but other than them, Wisconsin was our best representative despite their record which was misleading due to injuries during the season.
That is why I don't care about record as much as others do.
You're absolutely right about how it works in the NFL, and how it doesn't de-legitimize a Super Bowl winner if they're not the team with the best regular season record. I have no problem with that, but it's also in part (and here's my stodgy old coot side showing) because that's how it's always been as long as I watched the NFL. They may have added teams over time and expanded the playoffs, but the basic premise really hasn't changed.
The same is true of college hoops, although the expansion of the tournament and the focus on brackets has changed the basic premise somewhat from selecting a champion from a group of champions to something bigger. Once again, however, since that whole thing was already in progress by the time I was becoming a fan, the difference is really just one of degree.
But the basic premise is changing in college football - whether it's for the better or not is up to the individual. I'm certainly not foolish enough to think that it's going to go back to what it was, but I did appreciate that in a season with a very small number of games, every single one mattered if you wanted to play for the title. Did that mean that in some years a single upset took out what was truly the best team in the country, or the one that was playing the best at the end? Yes. But I didn't see it so much as looking back at year's end to see if the final outcome was or was not correct, but as making the journey itself more interesting, and unique in contrast to the other sports I follow. It was part of the different character of college football that made it fun to follow along with the NFL, where the actual quality of play is higher. But of course, everyone has a different opinion, and thoughtful and respectful discussion of differing viewpoints is a draw to this board.
Yeah, Im pretty much stuck in the middle in terms of my traditional nature. I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the old days of college football but the game has already changed so much that I am of the opinion that we should just go all the way. This current system is like a hybrid of what college football used to be and the pageantry involved mixed with the rational systematic method used in the NFL to truly find out who the best teams are at the end of the season.
Since the old way is already gone, the hybrid just doesn't do it justice. I know it is "painful" for many to see it go and the change has to be slow and gradual for them. I am one of those people that just wants to get the process over with so we can move on with what will be.
I can absolutely appreciate traditionalists views, I just have a hard time when I see talking points used that I don't feel are true.
It is a shame that the Rose Bowl is no longer as it used to be. It never will be though and I accept that. To me it is an ugly chimera of a system instituted by the conferences and networks to suck every last possible dollar out of those old systems as the traditionalists still cling to it. If the Rose Bowl doesn't happen every year between the Big Ten and PAC then I don't see why we should be trying to protect it as an every other year system or perhaps even less than that. We need to just let it go and let it be used by the Tournament as it is going to be eventually.
We all know where this is going, so my opinion is that we just get there sooner rather than later so we can all relax and get used to the new and eventual paradigm of college football.
|
|