(04-07-2015 12:02 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's why I don't get wound around the cord over basketball. Now that they squeeze 68 teams in the NCAA and 32 more into the NIT all these last three weeks mean to me is that 98 programs will end the season by losing and only 2 will end it with a win. And only one of those will be called the champion and that regardless of what they did in the regular season, conference schedule, or conference tournament. It's a dog and pony show more than a sport. The hottest or luckiest team wins it almost every year. And, the brackets are set up for mid major upsets but for a final 8 mostly made up of blue bloods. That's why you basically just have repeat winners.

For championships I much prefer the NCAA baseball tournament with a double elimination tournament interspersed with the best of 3 series.

Football is getting better but has a long way to go to be a fairer format. Nobody knows for sure every year which conferences were tougher in the regular season and which ones weren't. That's why a champions only model is the way to go. Any other format is right back to placing the decisions in the hands of people whether through polls or now committees.

Personally I think April 7th, 2015 will be a great day. No more basketball.

And football has new champions? Seems like the same 10-12 teams getting recycled.

Actually it's the College World Series that produces new Champions. Fresno State and Vanderbilt recently come to mind. College football will always be the major brands until we have a champs only format. That's the only reason we have a selection committee now. It insures that maximum national viewers will be involved. You can't have two privates from Texas in the final four. They just don't get the eyeballs that drive the advertising rates. The only way around it is champs only. Every conference gets their champion in. But then that's why we have 5 conferences. We had to have a great reason not to have 4 champions only. That keeps the power brokers in business and guarantees the network gets its national brands.

We have 10 conferences.

Five of whom will never be given a fair shot at the championship so in the media's eye they don't exist.

Florida was the last new champion in college football as well.

Before that it was probably Washington who split 1990 with Colorado.

(04-07-2015 11:59 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The modern era began either:

-In 1975, the beginning of the multi-bid conference era
-1979, when the Tournament began to be seeded. This was also the year of the 1-AA/1-A split in football IIRC, so it may be the best year to mark the change.
-1985, when the Dance first invited 64 teams
-1998, when the power of college football and in turn college sports shifted toward the conferences who were automatically invited to the BCS.

Anything else looks arbitrary and smacks of an agenda.

Honestly what could possibly be my agenda? I explained on page 1 where i got 1987 from and included the link and admited to mixing up "modern age" and modern era. I went back to 85 and incldued PSU and Nova in that post as well.

EDIT: Not to mention the entire point of the discussion has been swayed by questioning the start point on the list. Does it really matter to the overal point being made regarding number of football and basketball champions in a certain time frame? This board feels like bizarro world right now...maybe I didn't make the overal point clear enoguh when expanding on Lou C's post.

You're entitled to your view but I still think it's odd.

One thing I forgot to add was when the NCAA decided to force conference champions to go to the NCAAT and not the NIT. That could also been seen as the beginning of the modern era.

(04-07-2015 02:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  Florida was the last new champion in college football as well.

Before that it was probably Washington who split 1990 with Colorado.

FSU won their first in 1993.

Of course both FSU and UF ended up winning multiples, establishing themselves as "top echelon" programs or whatever you want to call them, so while they were "new", they were very quickly part of the established handful of anointed programs.

It's just crazy that the two sports, with vastly different designs and requirement and ways of determining champions, could not be more different in every way. And yet you get the same result...it has been almost historically impossible for a team outside the elite to just jump up with a great year and win a title as a one-off.

You just think about how close TCU was last year, or Oklahoma State in 2012, or how close Oregon has been. Or how many would-be first-timers have made the final four in the last 20 years. But they just don't seem to be able to seal the deal.

(04-07-2015 12:39 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 12:02 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:14 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 11:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's why I don't get wound around the cord over basketball. Now that they squeeze 68 teams in the NCAA and 32 more into the NIT all these last three weeks mean to me is that 98 programs will end the season by losing and only 2 will end it with a win. And only one of those will be called the champion and that regardless of what they did in the regular season, conference schedule, or conference tournament. It's a dog and pony show more than a sport. The hottest or luckiest team wins it almost every year. And, the brackets are set up for mid major upsets but for a final 8 mostly made up of blue bloods. That's why you basically just have repeat winners.

For championships I much prefer the NCAA baseball tournament with a double elimination tournament interspersed with the best of 3 series.

Football is getting better but has a long way to go to be a fairer format. Nobody knows for sure every year which conferences were tougher in the regular season and which ones weren't. That's why a champions only model is the way to go. Any other format is right back to placing the decisions in the hands of people whether through polls or now committees.

Personally I think April 7th, 2015 will be a great day. No more basketball.

And football has new champions? Seems like the same 10-12 teams getting recycled.

Actually it's the College World Series that produces new Champions. Fresno State and Vanderbilt recently come to mind. College football will always be the major brands until we have a champs only format. That's the only reason we have a selection committee now. It insures that maximum national viewers will be involved. You can't have two privates from Texas in the final four. They just don't get the eyeballs that drive the advertising rates. The only way around it is champs only. Every conference gets their champion in. But then that's why we have 5 conferences. We had to have a great reason not to have 4 champions only. That keeps the power brokers in business and guarantees the network gets its national brands.

We have 10 conferences.

Five of whom will never be given a fair shot at the championship so in the media's eye they don't exist.

You make it seem like this arrangement is something new. The AP national championship has only been awarded to a team not in currently in a P5 conference three times, BYU in 1984, and Army in 1944 and 1945.