When did we break down the schedules in two parts? It just doesn't make sense to me. Or does it? Usually the OOC vs IC schedule parts SEC vs well, everyone else. Fans of Team A blasts Team B for a weak conference. Then Team B attacks Team A's out of conference schedule. Blah, blah, blah. There's truth in both.
Just take a look at the two highest profile games this upcoming year:
Ohio State at Southern Cal
Georgia vs Florida @ the Cocktail Party
Both games are being treated like it's the plus one system in effect. Two games, most likely both will be a top 5 matchups. Here is my point, I think. Ohio State and USC went outside their conference to get their Top 5 matchup while Georgia and Florida have their Top 5 matchup built into their schedule. I'm not saying either is better or worse for it. What I'm saying is that when the season is over, all four of these teams will likely be in the Top 10 in strength of schedule. So can we please put to rest the OOC vs the IC? It's a weak arguement.
I dunno some of those ACC and Big East teams seem to have it made. Like fsu, I haven't looked at it but what they have UF and Clemson and I guess throw in um just because its a rivalary.
And what about last year's ohio state team, they didn't play someone in the Top 20 until they faced LSU. Their in and out of conference schedule was weak.
As long as each school's sports administrator gets to schedule the OOC it will be a problem... This runs across all the conferences.
As long as the polls are used to determine which teams get to play for the "national championship" in Division I football the padded OOC schedule will be a problem...
AS LONG AS THERE IS A POLL INSTEAD OF A PLAYOFF INVOLVED, THERE WILL BE A PROBLEM!
Another thing about OOC scheule those are scheduled years in advance. Like UF playing miami this year who would have thought this could still be a rebuiding year.
And I agree Dwindy on a playoff would settle all of it.
I want the football world to know that there is at least ONE Big Ten fan absolutely disgusted with the Big Ten conferences stand against a playoff.
Anyone else out there?
I firmly belive that the current system "leads us to the trough but doesn't let us drink".
Give me a playoff system where the lower seeded team visits the higher seeded team at it's home field.
Give me a playoff sytem where the championship game is at least occasionally played in the snow, sleet and hail that a majority of college football teams play in.
Give me a level playing field for northern teams, period.
gatormojo, a lot of the ACC have built in games with the SEC. The Big East has USF, West Virginia, and Rutgers just to name a few. They may not have any knockout punchers, but they have a few that can go the distance. Remember too that they are still recovering from the ACC basically shop lifting their conference.
dwindy, this is where you and I disagree. I don't think a full blown playoff would help college football, I think it would hurt it. A plus one is as far as I'm willing to concede. I've said it before, and I will say it again, the best thing college football can do is get rid of preseason rankings. There's no reason why one team should get a head start over another.
therealbigten, while northern teams would like a few games played in their ball field. It's not good for tv and it's not good for the fans. Remember when the Colts played the Bears in the Super Bowl. That game was sloppy and hard to watch. That was just rain.
Football is different than baseball or basketball. You can play three to four games in a week which affords them the time to play a playoff. Baseball playoffs are really confusing and basketball is a #### shoot. It might be won on the court, but it's about what team is hot during that period of time, not the overall season. I understand why some want a playoff, I just don't think they've taken the time to realize that it will not be good for the sport.
I think for most people the difference between conference and out-of-conference schedules is the programs ability to exert control.
A school has no control over the scheduling of their conference opponents. The are what they are and they are scheduled based on the rules set forth by the conference they are affiliated with.
The schools, however, have a lot more freedom to choose who they play against in OOC games. Ohio State, for instance, HAS to play Minnesota and Indiana. They do not have to play Youngstown State. By the same token, OSU chose to play USC; Florida and Georgia did not 'choose' to play each other this year.
So while the difference does not effect the final SOS ratings, it does effect the fans perceptions and indicates a willingness (or unwilligness - if that is a word) to play tough OOC opponents despite the risk of derailing an undefeated season and diminishing a teams chances of going to the big dance.
As a member of the community I understand the reasoning behind scheduling small, in-state opponents. But as a fan I would much rather see some good football between more equally matched opponents - at least for the games where scheduling is within the control of the program.
edmonspk, first, my opinion is that OOC SOS is actually more important than IC SOS. Why? Because OOC gives us an insight into the relative strength of conferences and enables us to evaluate the true IC SOS. In some cases we can mistakenly attribute a strong IC SOS to a conference that is merely "average" but has a high level of parity in teams. Thus some fans think the Big 12 is currently as strong as the SEC because they have numerous teams (like the SEC) who can compete for the title. We can only validate that through OOC games and bowl games.
Second, I would agree that we should go to a modified championship series vs a full blown playoff system. The timeframe to pull it off and the cost of unattended and unbroadcasted games would make it prohibitive. I have long suggested we use the conference championships (however they are determined) as the first round in determining playoff participants. Thus the BCS conferences would provide 6 playoff teams. The other two teams would come from non-BCS conferences or as "wild cards' from BCS conferences based upon their ranking in the polls. The four major bowl games (Rose,Fiesta,Orange, and Sugar) would be round two of the playoffs. The next round would take the four winners of the traditional bowl games. That would require two games on one Saturday prior to the eventual NC game. This great reduces the impact of the polls while providing all conferences the opportunity to participate in the playoff.
ed... The argument about football being different than the other sports when it comes to a playoff simply does not hold an ounce of water... Division I is the only division not using a championship playoff in football. Doesn't that just shoot you down??? Why support the Bowl/Poll system? All it is is a bunch of old cronies that have usurped the NCAA's rightful place as the administrator of collegiate athletics. The Bowls are obsolete and an absolute disgrace!
Dwindy1, ok windy1, show us what the playoff system looks like. Do we eliminate conferences altogether? Do we incorporate the existing conference championship games? How many teams are included and how are they selected? How many weeks does it take to complete the playoff? How do we pay for the games that nobody will attend and the media refuses to broadcast? I can be convinced but I need to see a plan.
There are several models out there... I think the conference Champions plus enough at large teams to set up a 16 team format... Regional games in the first two rounds leading to three games that ultimately yield a single national champion. Do away with the bowl games in terms of determining the national title and the 16 teams involved there... Look at the Division II playoff... It REALLY works!
The bowls don't have to go away. If you want to reward teams that win as many games as they lose (which the wonderful bowl games do now, BTW) then by all means, have the stupid Johnny Cat Bowl, toilet cleaner bowl or whatever... Reward all the also rans...
At least under the terms of a playoff the championship would be won on the field instead of in some pompous jerk's mind as it is now... You want to promote this Bowl/Poll system? I don't.
In terms of the all important money, a playoff would be phenomenal. Today the "Crown Jewel" of the NCAA is considered the basketball tournament... A Division I football playoff would overshadow that B-ball deal and the fan interest would go through the roof... This is why the bowls fight so hard to influence what is done. They know it would outstrip their "lucrative" deal...
In a nutshell... 16 teams, 11 conference champions plus 5 at large based on record and SOS. Second through fourth Saturdays in December with the NC game the first Saturday of the new year...
Dwindy1, I'm ok with the concept. I agree with you that taking the polls out of the mix is a desirable outcome. That said I'm not sure going to a 16 team format is advanageous compared to an 8 team format. Lets compare:
8 team format: SEC,B10,ACC,P10,B12,BEast, plus 2
16 team format: All the above plus WAC,MAC,Sunbelt,CUSA,MtWest plus 5
1) The MAC,Sunbelt,and CUSA don't field teams that can compete at an NC level. No disrepect intended but these conferences don't belong in a playoff.
2) WAC and MtWest have fielded a few marginal teams that might compete at this level.(Boise,Utah, and BYU come to mind). A purist could add them to the six BCS conferences making up an 8 game playoff. (I guess ND can join a conference.)
3) The eight game format allows us to use the existing 4 BCS bowl games as round one in the playoff. Thus we are only adding 2 games to CF.
4) The 16 game playoff puts 5 conference losers in the playoff system. Frankly, this diminishes the regular season and the conference championships to an unacceptable level for me. I want the polls to have less impact.
Regardless, lets all hope for a real playoff soon.
Leaving out certain conferences is simply not right. The "major" conferences have once again been sprung on us out of someone's imagination. Fair is fair. The "major" conferences have done whatever they could over the years to keep the other schools down... This is not right. All of the schools deserve a fair shot at the title (like any other NCAA sport), then you have equity.
The big schools and all their tradition are dead set against being fair. Whats to be afraid of? This is one more step back to amateurism, as it should be, with the wealth spread around. The money grubbers that live off of amateur athletics need to be brought down... What's fair is fair.
Dwindy1, just an observation but look at 2007 as an example of the two approaches.
Eight Team format: LSU,OSU,USC,VT,OK,WVU,GA,KS
Sixteen Team format: Same as above plus:
(Note bowl game results for each team added.)
5 Added Conference Champs:
Hawaii (Lost to GA 41-10)
Central Mich (Lost to Purdue 51-48)
BYU (Beat UCLA 17-16)
Troy/FAU (FAU beat Memphis 44-27)
UCF (Lost to Mississippi State 10-3)
3 Added by Poll Results
Missouri (Beat Arkansas 38-7)
Arizona State(Lost to Texas 52-34)
Florida(Lost to Michigan 41-35)
Bowl record for the additional eight teams is 3-5 and only one loss coming from teams in the eight team format. The only team that won big against a quality opponent was Mizzou and the eight team format already has two teams from the Big 12.
Adding these eight teams does nothing to increase the value or the credibility of an NC playoff. The eight team format includes solid representation from the major conferences with some flexibility for independents, other conferences, and strong conference "runner ups".
My opinion is that the eight team format provides the playoff system needed to eliminate the poll/bowl nonsense with minimal disruption to traditional play and traditional bowl scheduling. It just makes sense.
Dwindy1, The examples I gave you from 2007 illustrate the gap between the 6 major conferences and the "rest". As far as fairness is concerned is it "fair" for teams like Central Michigan,FAU, or UCF to play in a championship series when they are clearly inferior programs compared to Florida,Michigan,Oregon,Texas, and others? Now, I agree that a mechanism needs to be in place to allow every team in Div 1 (Championship Subdivision) some opportunity to compete in the NC but it is ludicrous to provide the MAC,CUSA, or Sunbelt conference champs an automatic ticket to the playoffs.If pressed I would say let the conference champs for the WAC and MtWest round out the final two positions for an eight team playoff and eliminate the poll based positions altogether. (I'd welcome ND into the Big 10 with open arms.) That would require putting the MAC,CUSA,Sunbelt, and other independent teams into the Division I AA where they can compete. For most of us having a playoff system in CF is about eliminating the "selection by poll" and having the best teams appearing in the NC game. Its not about being "fair" to inferior teams and giving them a 1000 to 1 shot at appearing in an NC game. I don't know which CF team you follow (My guess is that its the Utes but its not on your profile.) but you seem to have an axe to grind that trancends having a workable cf playoff. The eight game playoff provides us with eight credible teams spread across multiple conferences as contenders for the NC game. Pragmatic as it may be the fact is the 8 game system is better because it is more likely to be adopted.
Dwindy!, If I keep making these long posts I will have to change to Dwindytoo. LOL. Edmonspk, sorry about the length of the posts. Playoff talk gets me all worked up.
dwindy/skcu,
Here's my thing about the BCS...when have I felt that the BCS didn't get it right? Maybe the year that USC won and Auburn was still undefeated. Besides that, I've been okay with it. What I won't be okay with is when an 8-4 team makes the "playoffs" and gets hot during said playoffs and wins. I don't want to settle for mediocre when I don't have to. Could you imagine Ohio State not playing their starters in the 2nd half because they already have a playoff spot locked and don't want to go into the playoffs "limping"?
I do respect both of your opinions, and can see why playoffs would be good. I also think that it would total get rid of the importance of the regular season.
I'm not trying to be a sports writer. I just want to share some different views with you.
Sid Bream sliding into home may be my favorite sports memories.
