|
|
Post by butters on Nov 26, 2005 21:54:51 GMT -5
Who is it going to be?
All of the options should be possible scenarios. Here's how:
1. USC v. Texas: USC beats UCLA and Texas beats Colorado.
2. USC v. Penn State: USC beats UCLA but Colorado beats Texas
3. Texas v. Penn State: Texas beats Colorado but UCLA beats USC
4. Penn State v. LSU: UCLA beats USC, Colorado beats Texas, and LSU wins the SEC Championship Game
5. Penn State v. Virginia Tech: UCLA beats USC, Colorado beats Texas, LSU loses the SEC Championship Game and Virginia Tech beats Florida State.
6. Penn State v. Ohio State: UCLA beats USC, Colorado beats Texas, LSU loses the SEC Championship Game, and Florida State beats Virginia Tech
So what's it going to be!
|
|
|
|
Post by josharpie99 on Nov 29, 2005 1:22:35 GMT -5
USC/Texas...and here's hoping that SOME DAY there is a tournament to decide the national champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 29, 2005 1:57:18 GMT -5
USC and Texas, although I think rankings shouldn't come out until at least the 2nd or 3rd game of the season. It gives an extremely unfair advantage to anyone ranked high in the preseason.
Being an SEC guy, I hope LSU can sneak in. Just glad louisville is out of it (although they think they did, they actually had no chance)
|
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Nov 29, 2005 1:58:21 GMT -5
Just curious, how would everyone do a tourny? You'd probably have to go with a 16 team, but I think a fair shot would be 32 teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by butters on Nov 29, 2005 9:29:56 GMT -5
Anything more than eight would take far too long. I like the fact that there is no tournament, because it makes it different from the NFL. I'm not happy about adding an additional BCS game, though. Four was just right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Nov 29, 2005 12:25:59 GMT -5
Where's the option that the Championship game should be in another bowl so we can have Big Ten vs. Pac 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by GrumpyBigBee on Nov 29, 2005 12:30:42 GMT -5
well two from the same conference will never be in the same bowl together...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Nov 29, 2005 12:46:31 GMT -5
Anything more than eight would take far too long. I like the fact that there is no tournament, because it makes it different from the NFL. I'm not happy about adding an additional BCS game, though. Four was just right. It depends on when the tournament starts. If you started the tournament the week after the conference title games (and there's no way that the conferences are giving those $millions any time soon), you could have 5 rounds of games, meaning 32 teams. The championship game would be right after New Year's Day. The BEST way to do it would be to eliminate the 12th game that they are allowing starting next year, and end everything a week earlier. Rotate the games between the major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange still rotate the title game, plus the semi-finals and a quarter-final game). That would allow 31 Bowls to be represented (which would include virtually all of them). A few smaller bowl games not associated with the national title could still be played for teams that don't qualify for the tournament (like the NIT was for years in hoops). Again, this is unlikely to happen, since most big schools won't like sharing the pie with the smaller conferences. Heck, you can add play-in games the weekend of the conference championship if you want to. As for anyone who says that this would extend the season too long.... what's the difference between having a tournament and what's going on now (answer- there isn't any). I-AA, II and III do it, and so can D-I. For those who say that it's too much travel and too many games.... look no further than March Madness to see the school's hypocrisy on this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by josharpie99 on Nov 29, 2005 22:30:44 GMT -5
You can always cut the season off at the last week of December and then start the tourney. Most teams don't play for over a month between their last regluar season game and the bowl game. That is ridiculous, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by butters on Nov 29, 2005 23:24:26 GMT -5
You guys have to remember that these athletes are students, so to have them travelling during final exams is never going to happen.
It's different with March Madness because that is mid-semester.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Nov 30, 2005 9:37:53 GMT -5
Actually, the hoops players tend to miss more class time than the football players, due to all the mid-week games. If you go to the Final Four, you effectively miss close to a month of class.
Final exam rescheduling can happen- if a player is leaving on Thursday night for a game, you can have him take the exam on Thursday afternoon or the following week when they come back.
Like I said, D-I is no more "academically-inclined" than I-AA and I-AA manages a playoff. The D-I spring sports (baseball, softball, track, lacrosse, etc.) go right through the spring semester finals. Ideally, the academic interests of the athletes would be the deciding factor in this- but that isn't the case. It's the millions of dollars that the major conferences and participating schools stand to lose in the short term if they "share the wealth" in a national playoff. In the long run, I believe that it could be a bonanza for the NCAA, but schools like Notre Dame, USC, FSU, Ohio State, etc will not be able to make as much money through the national playoff. They view football as an investment that funds many other activities (academic, athletic and social) on campus and don't want to limit what they can make.
|
|
|
|
Post by butters on Nov 30, 2005 10:01:19 GMT -5
NCAA Basketball players travelling is a lot different, because Spring Semester Finals are in May, not March. Finals can be rescheduled, but it's a pretty huge burden on the instructors, and they shouldn't have to cater to student-athletes in such a way.
Final Four is murder on the student athletes because they absolutely do not miss a ton of class. They have to take care of their studying, tutoring, and coursework in addition to travelling on the weekend. All of this studying, tutoring, etc is tracked by the Athletic Department, at least it is here at Maryland.
So basically, I don't agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Nov 30, 2005 14:57:51 GMT -5
NCAA Basketball players travelling is a lot different, because Spring Semester Finals are in May, not March. Finals can be rescheduled, but it's a pretty huge burden on the instructors, and they shouldn't have to cater to student-athletes in such a way. Sorry if I was unclear. I was talking about the spring sports (baseball, softball, lacrosse, track, etc.) that have postseason tournaments that interfere with exams. Basketball's postseason doesn't conflict with final exams, but it impact's student's learning in other ways, mostly in missed class hours (and in-class quizzes and exams). Final Four is murder on the student athletes because they absolutely do not miss a ton of class. They have to take care of their studying, tutoring, and coursework in addition to travelling on the weekend. All of this studying, tutoring, etc is tracked by the Athletic Department, at least it is here at Maryland. So basically, I don't agree. Take another look at the hoops schedules- games for the first 4 rounds are on Thursday and Saturday or Friday and Sunday. All teams get into town on Tuesday before the game for media obligations and practice time on the court. This virtually guarantees that students miss 3-4 days of class. A reputable university will require that the students make up this time in some way (tutors, arrangements with the professors, mandatory study hours, etc.). The point is, they have to make up the time even if they aren't missing exams. We agree on that (I think). Final Four is a bit different- the semi-final game isn't until Saturday, so they don't arrive until Thursday (I think) and the final game is Monday night, getting the players back to campus on Tuesday. I believe I've heard of some teams that do not even bother going back to campus between the second and third rounds based on how far away that they are playing. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Beck on Dec 3, 2005 22:15:17 GMT -5
Looks like we'll be seeing the Match up that we, or at least I, have been waiting all Season to see!
Trojan Victory!
|
|
|
|
Post by gatekeeper on Dec 8, 2005 7:39:02 GMT -5
Actually, the hoops players tend to miss more class time than the football players, due to all the mid-week games. If you go to the Final Four, you effectively miss close to a month of class. Final exam rescheduling can happen- if a player is leaving on Thursday night for a game, you can have him take the exam on Thursday afternoon or the following week when they come back. Like I said, D-I is no more "academically-inclined" than I-AA and I-AA manages a playoff. The D-I spring sports (baseball, softball, track, lacrosse, etc.) go right through the spring semester finals. Ideally, the academic interests of the athletes would be the deciding factor in this- but that isn't the case. It's the millions of dollars that the major conferences and participating schools stand to lose in the short term if they "share the wealth" in a national playoff. In the long run, I believe that it could be a bonanza for the NCAA, but schools like Notre Dame, USC, FSU, Ohio State, etc will not be able to make as much money through the national playoff. They view football as an investment that funds many other activities (academic, athletic and social) on campus and don't want to limit what they can make. Well D-II and D-III seem to have no problem having a playoff system for football. It boils down to $. The bowls make a lot of money for a lot of companies. Plus, if you had a playoff system, many more colleges and college Football fans would be unhappy because there would only be 1 successful team. As opposed to the many that end their season with a Bowl Game win, they would then be losers in a playoff. Plus, there are so many teams that even if you said, "Ok we're having, the top 8 teams in a playoff." You'd still have teams 9 &10 saying they were unfairly left out. So, I think the system is flawed, but I don't think there's a real good solution. |
|
