Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
DexterDevil Offline
DCTID
*

Posts: 5,008
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 218
I Root For: EMU, DCFC
Location: Jackson, Mi
Post: #41
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
If Texas and can get out of the GOR then we need to GUN for Oklahoma and Kansas right away and pick them up, put the pressure on Mizzou to join and then look eastern to UNC and Virginia to get to 20.

Must have pods if we get to 16+

East: UNC, Virginia, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Great Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Mizzou, Kansas
North: Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Wisconsin

4 divisional games, 4 crossover games.

Crossover games work like this:(North)

2016: 2 games against West, 1 against Great Lakes, 1 against East
2017: 1 game against West, 2 against Great Lakes, 1 against East
2018: 1 game against West, 1 against Great Lakes, 2 against East.

Years and division names are just examples, pay no attention to them.

Any changes or suggestions?
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2013 12:53 PM by DexterDevil.)
08-17-2013 12:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #42
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 12:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-16-2013 11:37 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 04:02 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...

Even baseball couldn't resist screwing that one up.

I guess that means all NFL champions should have their championships annulled too.

God I cant stand traditionals who think their opinion is fact.

The word "cant" in his statement is obviously false because we DO have true conference champions and they DO earn it on the field. Only people who cant deal with change try to make silly statements such as his.

It is just his opinion that such does not make for a "true" conference champion.

Guess what....I bet he watches the NFL and I bet he watches the Super Bowl and I bet he never says that the winner isn't a true winner because they didn't have the same schedule as the team they beat.

How about the conference champions and how they earn that title? They don't play the exact same teams either, does that mean the two competing teams in the NFL are not deserving?

It is a dumb argument and I am not going to sugarcoat it for traditionals. I appreciate folks having their own opinion but that opinion can be expressed intelligently.

I'll agree it's all opinion. I was very annoyed over the year about all the people talking about the BCS wasn't settling things on the field, when from my perspective, it was actually doing it a heck of a lot more based on on the field results than pretty much any other system, since every game was scrutinized, any loss meant a lot, and not dominating bad competition even mattered. I'll admit, sometimes I probably overly react the other way after so many times of being told we had to break up tradition (particularly bowl alignments) in order to have a "true champion".
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2013 02:13 PM by ohio1317.)
08-17-2013 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #43
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 02:12 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(08-17-2013 12:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(08-16-2013 11:37 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(08-11-2013 04:02 AM)Volkmar Wrote:  You can't have a TRUE conference champion if teams in the same conference are playing different schedules...

Even baseball couldn't resist screwing that one up.

I guess that means all NFL champions should have their championships annulled too.

God I cant stand traditionals who think their opinion is fact.

The word "cant" in his statement is obviously false because we DO have true conference champions and they DO earn it on the field. Only people who cant deal with change try to make silly statements such as his.

It is just his opinion that such does not make for a "true" conference champion.

Guess what....I bet he watches the NFL and I bet he watches the Super Bowl and I bet he never says that the winner isn't a true winner because they didn't have the same schedule as the team they beat.

How about the conference champions and how they earn that title? They don't play the exact same teams either, does that mean the two competing teams in the NFL are not deserving?

It is a dumb argument and I am not going to sugarcoat it for traditionals. I appreciate folks having their own opinion but that opinion can be expressed intelligently.

I'll agree it's all opinion. I was very annoyed over the year about all the people talking about the BCS wasn't settling things on the field, when from my perspective, it was actually doing it a heck of a lot more based on on the field results than pretty much any other system, since every game was scrutinized, any loss meant a lot, and not dominating bad competition even mattered. I'll admit, sometimes I probably overly react the other way after so many times of being told we had to break up tradition (particularly bowl alignments) in order to have a "true champion".

I agree, it goes both ways. I do think the BCS was a huge improvement over the previous system. I do think the previous system crowned a champion too. They are just different systems and folks will differ in opinion on them.

My favorite method is on the field. I don't care if the two teams havnt faced the same teams previously. If most folks can honestly say they think both teams deserve to be there then I think the winner is a true champion in every way possible.

That is why I like the idea of conference tournaments leading up to a national tournament. It would be very hard to say the winning team didn't deserve it, even if they were the underdog.
08-17-2013 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #44
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 12:53 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  If Texas and can get out of the GOR then we need to GUN for Oklahoma and Kansas right away and pick them up, put the pressure on Mizzou to join and then look eastern to UNC and Virginia to get to 20.

Must have pods if we get to 16+

East: UNC, Virginia, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Great Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana
West: Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Mizzou, Kansas
North: Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Wisconsin

4 divisional games, 4 crossover games.

Crossover games work like this:(North)

2016: 2 games against West, 1 against Great Lakes, 1 against East
2017: 1 game against West, 2 against Great Lakes, 1 against East
2018: 1 game against West, 1 against Great Lakes, 2 against East.

Years and division names are just examples, pay no attention to them.

Any changes or suggestions?

I think that leads to a 10 game schedule if it happens instead of them dropping a game by going from the 9 game schedule we will now be doing and then going back to an 8 game schedule.
08-17-2013 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #45
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 02:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is why I like the idea of conference tournaments leading up to a national tournament. It would be very hard to say the winning team didn't deserve it, even if they were the underdog.

Prefecing by saying again it's all opinion, but that's where I disagree. If they win that system, they are champions, but I don't think they will have earned it as much as teams in the current system.

I've always felt that college basketball champion is a lot less earned on the court than football on the field, since in basketball, the only thing they are counting are tournament games. If football, if you lose week 1, it matters. Maybe you can recover, but you aren't guarenteed of that. In basketball, you can finish 3-4 in your conference and be crowned national champs. Heck, UConn was 9th in the Big East and won once. To me, that means the current system for football is a lot more earned on the field and I hope against any further expansion of the playoff or any conference tournaments. Obviously only my opinion, but it's how I've always felt and one big reason I've always loved college football.
(This post was last modified: 08-17-2013 05:16 PM by ohio1317.)
08-17-2013 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poliicious Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 7
I Root For: WildcatsHuskies
Location:
Post: #46
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 05:15 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(08-17-2013 02:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is why I like the idea of conference tournaments leading up to a national tournament. It would be very hard to say the winning team didn't deserve it, even if they were the underdog.

Prefecing by saying again it's all opinion, but that's where I disagree. If they win that system, they are champions, but I don't think they will have earned it as much as teams in the current system.

I've always felt that college basketball champion is a lot less earned on the court than football on the field, since in basketball, the only thing they are counting are tournament games. If football, if you lose week 1, it matters. Maybe you can recover, but you aren't guarenteed of that. In basketball, you can finish 3-4 in your conference and be crowned national champs. Heck, UConn was 9th in the Big East and won once. To me, that means the current system for football is a lot more earned on the field and I hope against any further expansion of the playoff or any conference tournaments. Obviously only my opinion, but it's how I've always felt and one big reason I've always loved college football.


What hoops does well is it recognizes and rewards the team(s) that are playing their best game during the conference & national tourney which is when you want your team peaking. More important how good you are in March/April than Nov/Dece
08-19-2013 09:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #47
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-17-2013 12:53 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  If Texas and can get out of the GOR then we need to GUN for Oklahoma and Kansas right away and pick them up, put the pressure on Mizzou to join and then look eastern to UNC and Virginia to get to 20.

Of course, adding all 6 of those teams would require the demise of two major conferences and a steal from another, but that would be an absolute coup by the B1G.
08-20-2013 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #48
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-19-2013 09:43 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  
(08-17-2013 05:15 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(08-17-2013 02:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That is why I like the idea of conference tournaments leading up to a national tournament. It would be very hard to say the winning team didn't deserve it, even if they were the underdog.

Prefecing by saying again it's all opinion, but that's where I disagree. If they win that system, they are champions, but I don't think they will have earned it as much as teams in the current system.

I've always felt that college basketball champion is a lot less earned on the court than football on the field, since in basketball, the only thing they are counting are tournament games. If football, if you lose week 1, it matters. Maybe you can recover, but you aren't guarenteed of that. In basketball, you can finish 3-4 in your conference and be crowned national champs. Heck, UConn was 9th in the Big East and won once. To me, that means the current system for football is a lot more earned on the field and I hope against any further expansion of the playoff or any conference tournaments. Obviously only my opinion, but it's how I've always felt and one big reason I've always loved college football.


What hoops does well is it recognizes and rewards the team(s) that are playing their best game during the conference & national tourney which is when you want your team peaking. More important how good you are in March/April than Nov/Dece
But why is it important for a team to peak at that point? Because of the existence of the tournament. It's somewhat of a "chicken and the egg" situation.

While I have no problem with round-robin play being the sole criteria for choosing a champion within a somewhat small group (whether that be an NCAA conference or another entity like the EPL), I certainly think that a tournament is the only appropriate way to select a champion when you're trying to decide a champion from a large group where it's not feasible to have a meaningful schedule in terms of playing everyone.

I can also sympathize with traditionalists who bemoan what they perceive as excessive inclusiveness for a tournament. In NCAA hoops, UConn in 2011 and Kansas in 1988 (Hey, I'm willing to be fair and call my own team out) are teams that I can see as having benefited from having been hot for a short tournament but whose overall body of work for the year don't necessarily merit them being named the best team. Did they win the tournament, and therefore follow the rules for being the champion? Absolutely. But I can see how people can be skeptical about them, given that they finished a ways down just within their own leagues. But I don't know that the problem there is the tournament, or the breadth of inclusion.

It's not going to change in hoops because "March Madness" isn't ultimately crowning a champion (it's brackets, brackets, brackets) but I don't foresee that being a big issue in football. It's such a physical game that I don't foresee a tournament expanding beyond a select few teams, and while there may be some who are seen as more worthy than others, I don't think that you'd see the "get hot for a few weeks and win it all" potential that there is in college hoops.
08-20-2013 04:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #49
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Very good analysis Beware. We aren't coming from exactly the same place, but I did like the read. I agree that simply getting hot at the end, is less a concern in football given the game limitations. The only way I'd say that wasn't the case, would be something with both conference tournaments and a national tournament which got filtered straight from there (in which case teams ending the year 9-3 would be making the national tournament), which I think would be highly unlikely as that's more games than I think the presidents would go for. My biggest concern for football is the effect on the regular season and bowls themselves.

I'm a natural traditionalist, so the idea of winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl and too heck with any national title considerations is actually OK with me. I would have no problem if we simply dumped the idea of one national champ in football and went back to big bowls for a great seasons.

That said, I learned to love college football in the BCS era and if we are going to heavily promote a national champion, I love the way the system worked despite all the criticism. I'm only speaking for myself, but this is what the system led me to:


1. Start each season with high hopes of making the title game.
2. Watch and cheer against every high ranked team knowing each loss helped my team.
3. If the Buckeyes lost 1 game, I cheered doubly hard for others to lose. After that they were out of it, but:
4. I knew that every game involving a high ranked team mattered in the season for the national title. While I didn't watch them all, I kept tabs on them a lot (if just checking ESPN.com). I remember on a Friday seeing undefeated Oklahoma State was playing an Iowa State team they should crush. I checked the score online a few times and when I saw it was close late, I turned it on.
5. If Ohio State wasn't in the national title game, I still was very satisfied with a BCS bowl, especially the Rose Bowl.
6. Even if the Buckeyes had a bad season, it was nice seeing a lot of teams end up well with big victories in bowls to end their years.
7. I was rooting hard for the Big Ten throughout since Ohio State's fate sometimes rests on the conference's perception.

I frown more on national tournaments, because they remove a lot of the elements I really liked with the system. Every game becomes a little less do and die with each increase in tournament size. If there is any conceivable (not likely, just possible) way that a team could finish the regular season 9-3 or worse and make it to the national title game, then I see a lot less reason to care about any conference besides the Big Ten. By the time a game could eliminate a team from the national title race, the team is far enough back that they just aren't as interesting to watch in the first place. This also effects me rooting for the conference. If the Big Ten champ is likely in the tournament regardless, I see a lot less reason to watch an SEC or ACC or PAC-12 regular season game and a lot less reason to cheer for Big Ten teams against them.

This basically just mirrors my basketball attention. I don't care about 95% of the games anyone in the ACC, SEC, PAC-12, etc play in the regular season because it doesn't effect my team or the national title race all that much. If #1 Duke plays #2 Kentucky in the regular season, it's not much watch TV for me, since both teams are going to the NCAA Tournament anyway and that game doesn't even effect conference standings.
08-21-2013 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #50
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
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.
08-21-2013 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #51
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2013 12:15 PM by He1nousOne.)
08-21-2013 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #52
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(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. 04-cheers
08-21-2013 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #53
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. 04-cheers

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.
08-21-2013 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #54
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-21-2013 12:11 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  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.

I understand we are coming from different points of view and will never really agree here. That said, let me try to explain the mentality.

Every game does matter in the NFL to an extent, but it's not at the level of college football. Imagine that in week 1, if the Cowboys lose, they are more or less out of Super Bowl contention. Even given the NFL's huge ratings, how many more people would watch that game given those stakes?

Now I'm not suggesting that the college model would work best in the NFL, in fact, I'll say right now that it wouldn't, but the experience I get from the NFL and college is far different because of those added stakes.

The model used by college football would be difficult to use many places at all, but in college football it works very well to force greatness beginning to end (which to me is more important than greatness just at the end) and to make games all across the country important even to people who don't care about that conference/schools in particular.

To me, turning college football into a larger version of the NFL would be driving stake through what's made me a national fan in the first place. I don't watch the NFL and while that puts me in a minority, I'm far from alone in that and would hate to see college football simply turned into another version of it.

Edit: I should probably add, I actually kind of liked the BCS hybrid model. I'd be fine going back full traditional too, but think it struck a good balance of tradition and emphasizing every regular season game as much as possible. I don't think the CFP will be quite as good, but at 4 teams will still do fine. At 8 teams is where I think my overall interest in the sport will start to seriously decline.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2013 08:51 PM by ohio1317.)
08-21-2013 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #55
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
The "every game matters" mindset is nice and all, but NFL regular season prime time ratings beat even college football's NCG ratings. People watch because the know the product and they love it - and more or less the "any given Sunday" part of it.
08-22-2013 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #56
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
I get that the NFL beats college ratings, but the NFL will beat college ranking no matter what format they use.

I think adopting the NFL model in college football is a recipe for a decline in the sport. The sport is already broken down into 5 power conferences that only have limited games against each other and more than 120 teams total which is very different than the 30 teams of the NFL, especially when you add in that the pro-sports automatically get more natural attention. If PAC-12 and ACC games stop effecting Big Ten teams much, it's more than likely that regular season viewing of games involving those conferences and even out of conference games between them and Big Ten teams declines in Big Ten territory and vice versa. The difficulty of getting to the championship has very much turned the sport far more national in the BCS era. Conference tournaments leading into a national tournaments would have a similar effect to what we already see in college basketball (although not to the same scale). In college basketball, a very large chunk of fans compared to college football are still interested in the sport, but really only take time to watch local teams and follow their local conference. A few games will still draw extra eyeballs, but there will be far fewer must see games in basketball until you get to the NCAA Tournament.
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013 08:31 PM by ohio1317.)
08-22-2013 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,887
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
(08-22-2013 08:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I get that the NFL beats college ratings, but the NFL will beat college ranking no matter what format they use.

I think adopting the NFL model in college football is a recipe for a decline in the sport. The sport is already broken down into 5 power conferences that only have limited games against each other and more than 120 teams total which is very different than the 30 teams of the NFL, especially when you add in that the pro-sports automatically get more natural attention. If PAC-12 and ACC games stop effecting Big Ten teams much, it's more than likely that regular season viewing of games involving those conferences and even out of conference games between them and Big Ten teams declines in Big Ten territory and vice versa. The difficulty of getting to the championship has very much turned the sport far more national in the BCS era. Conference tournaments leading into a national tournaments would have a similar effect to what we already see in college basketball (although not to the same scale). In college basketball, a very large chunk of fans compared to college football are still interested in the sport, but really only take time to watch local teams and follow their local conference. A few games will still draw extra eyeballs, but there will be far fewer must see games in basketball until you get to the NCAA Tournament.

I agree. If we wind up with three or four large conferences the emphasis should be upon playing a schedule of at least 10 conference games. This will help to keep the flavor regional, which in my experience will keep the interest a lot higher. There also needs to be a quality of anticipation for the playoffs and bowls. Many more people tune in to watch when their teams haven't already played PAC and SEC schools and either won by big margins or gotten waxed. The proliferation of big out of conference games for television's sake has actually had a deleterious affect upon regional viewers. Do you think there would have been more interest in Oregon all season long if they had not started with a loss to L.S.U.? Would Virginia Tech have held interest a lot longer if Alabama had not destroyed them in the first game? Did Michigan have any great incentive after suffering the same fate? And it could have worked just as effectively to the negative for the SEC as well.

Let's decide our conference championships first and dedicate most of the season to that end and maintain the mystery of the cross conference potentialities until the playoffs and bowls. It's the mystery of which conference really is pre-imminent that puts the fans all in for the season finale and that's the way it should be.

Now that realignment has made us larger we should have plenty of content within our conferences, especially if we drop all of the lower tier schools from the schedule, to keep the networks happy. I really want to see unspoiled champions playing for the championship and I want to watch the bowls to determine the relative strength of the conferences.
08-22-2013 08:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #58
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
I don't mind that losing an early game ends national title hopes. That makes the big games across the country interesting to me in fact. That said, I would definitely be in favor of 10 conference games even if it came at the expense of every big non-conference game of the regular season. As close to round robin as you can get is the best way to determine a champion in my book.
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2013 10:30 PM by ohio1317.)
08-22-2013 10:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bigblueblindness Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,073
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 53
I Root For: UK, Lipscomb
Location: Kentucky
Post: #59
RE: If the B1G really adds Texas, who is #16? or will there be more?
Agree totally with ohio and JR. This is where 12 team conferences would be ideal. Each team could play round robin in conference (11 games), and then the last game could be the OOC rivalry or a marquee matchup. That is more than enough of a sampling for a playoff selection committee.
08-23-2013 09:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.