Fix by expanding to 8 teams.

(01-02-2016 09:29 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This college football season is going to go down as a very odd season that we don't want to see again.

Was it 4 or 5 turnovers from Bama to lose to Ole Miss? BYU winning all of those games at the last second. Nebraska losing all of those games on the last play of the game. Michigan State winning a game when never leading for a single second of the game. Michigan State driving the distance aginst Iowa with a time consuming drive that took forever to do and had to make many big plays just to continue the drive. Ohio State couldnt' get first downs against Michigan State for some odd reason and not feeding the football to their running back was stupid.

Auburn going to overtime against an FCS team. Seriously!!!!!

Florida started strong and their QB got busted for roids and then Florida fell flat.

Oklahoma didn't have to face 4 starting QB's.

All conference runner-ups lost.

So many bowl game blowouts.

I could keep going but you get the point.

yeah a very weird season. I sense a game in some change. Starting to see more power type teams having more and more success. I don't know if I would say the spread is dead, but I think we've probably seen the height of it.

I would like to see teams go back to more power based offenses. I enjoy a physical beat down like Michigan put on Florida than that Ole Miss vs Oklahoma State garbage last night.

Teams that are starting to use fullbacks again are finding them to be very effective since teams have lost touch on how to scheme against a good fullback that is used for blocking, running and receiving. It is also easier to dominate a team by pounding away at them with lead blockers and have a stud RB following behind.

Stanford is dominating the Pac 12 now because they are the only team in that conference right now that is physical. Sure that conference is having a nice bowl season, but look at who they have actually won against.....they had a 1-2 record against the B1G.

You mean you would like to see more power based offenses like Alabama put a beat down on the Big 10 Champion and do it so thoroughly they shut them out and humiliate them in front of the nation. Is that what you mean?

It sure wasn't because a 3 loss Michigan team put a beat down on anybody.

But yes, all of the conferences would do well to get back to more of a physical style of play offensively, but more importantly defensively. Those who put beat downs on the opposition all had one thing in common whether running up tempo, or pro style offenses. Their defense stuffed the opposition at the line of scrimmage.

Ole Miss runs a form of the spread, but they defensively handled OSU. Much the same way that Stanford stuffed Iowa, Alabama stuffed Michigan State (more points than rushing yards for the Spartans) and on and on.

What we don't need more of are 5-7 schools taking the slot of a deserving school, even if that school is from a smaller conference. Let's make the bowl requirement a 7 win season and fill the bowls with only schools that reach that number whether they are from the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, or whatever.

Losers shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl game. The season should mean something.

(01-02-2016 09:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:29 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This college football season is going to go down as a very odd season that we don't want to see again.

Was it 4 or 5 turnovers from Bama to lose to Ole Miss? BYU winning all of those games at the last second. Nebraska losing all of those games on the last play of the game. Michigan State winning a game when never leading for a single second of the game. Michigan State driving the distance aginst Iowa with a time consuming drive that took forever to do and had to make many big plays just to continue the drive. Ohio State couldnt' get first downs against Michigan State for some odd reason and not feeding the football to their running back was stupid.

Auburn going to overtime against an FCS team. Seriously!!!!!

Florida started strong and their QB got busted for roids and then Florida fell flat.

Oklahoma didn't have to face 4 starting QB's.

All conference runner-ups lost.

So many bowl game blowouts.

I could keep going but you get the point.

yeah a very weird season. I sense a game in some change. Starting to see more power type teams having more and more success. I don't know if I would say the spread is dead, but I think we've probably seen the height of it.

I would like to see teams go back to more power based offenses. I enjoy a physical beat down like Michigan put on Florida than that Ole Miss vs Oklahoma State garbage last night.

Teams that are starting to use fullbacks again are finding them to be very effective since teams have lost touch on how to scheme against a good fullback that is used for blocking, running and receiving. It is also easier to dominate a team by pounding away at them with lead blockers and have a stud RB following behind.

Stanford is dominating the Pac 12 now because they are the only team in that conference right now that is physical. Sure that conference is having a nice bowl season, but look at who they have actually won against.....they had a 1-2 record against the B1G.

You mean you would like to see more power based offenses like Alabama put a beat down on the Big 10 Champion and do it so thoroughly they shut them out and humiliate them in front of the nation. Is that what you mean?

It sure wasn't because a 3 loss Michigan team put a beat down on anybody.

But yes, all of the conferences would do well to get back to more of a physical style of play offensively, but more importantly defensively. Those who put beat downs on the opposition all had one thing in common whether running up tempo, or pro style offenses. Their defense stuffed the opposition at the line of scrimmage.

Ole Miss runs a form of the spread, but they defensively handled OSU. Much the same way that Stanford stuffed Iowa, Alabama stuffed Michigan State (more points than rushing yards for the Spartans) and on and on.

What we don't need more of are 5-7 schools taking the slot of a deserving school, even if that school is from a smaller conference. Let's make the bowl requirement a 7 win season and fill the bowls with only schools that reach that number whether they are from the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, or whatever.

Losers shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl game. The season should mean something.

You can run a power based, physical style of rushing attack out of any formation. So many teams these days just have their OL stand up and block even when run blocking.

(01-02-2016 09:49 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:29 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 09:03 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  This college football season is going to go down as a very odd season that we don't want to see again.

Was it 4 or 5 turnovers from Bama to lose to Ole Miss? BYU winning all of those games at the last second. Nebraska losing all of those games on the last play of the game. Michigan State winning a game when never leading for a single second of the game. Michigan State driving the distance aginst Iowa with a time consuming drive that took forever to do and had to make many big plays just to continue the drive. Ohio State couldnt' get first downs against Michigan State for some odd reason and not feeding the football to their running back was stupid.

Auburn going to overtime against an FCS team. Seriously!!!!!

Florida started strong and their QB got busted for roids and then Florida fell flat.

Oklahoma didn't have to face 4 starting QB's.

All conference runner-ups lost.

So many bowl game blowouts.

I could keep going but you get the point.

yeah a very weird season. I sense a game in some change. Starting to see more power type teams having more and more success. I don't know if I would say the spread is dead, but I think we've probably seen the height of it.

I would like to see teams go back to more power based offenses. I enjoy a physical beat down like Michigan put on Florida than that Ole Miss vs Oklahoma State garbage last night.

Teams that are starting to use fullbacks again are finding them to be very effective since teams have lost touch on how to scheme against a good fullback that is used for blocking, running and receiving. It is also easier to dominate a team by pounding away at them with lead blockers and have a stud RB following behind.

Stanford is dominating the Pac 12 now because they are the only team in that conference right now that is physical. Sure that conference is having a nice bowl season, but look at who they have actually won against.....they had a 1-2 record against the B1G.

You mean you would like to see more power based offenses like Alabama put a beat down on the Big 10 Champion and do it so thoroughly they shut them out and humiliate them in front of the nation. Is that what you mean?

It sure wasn't because a 3 loss Michigan team put a beat down on anybody.

But yes, all of the conferences would do well to get back to more of a physical style of play offensively, but more importantly defensively. Those who put beat downs on the opposition all had one thing in common whether running up tempo, or pro style offenses. Their defense stuffed the opposition at the line of scrimmage.

Ole Miss runs a form of the spread, but they defensively handled OSU. Much the same way that Stanford stuffed Iowa, Alabama stuffed Michigan State (more points than rushing yards for the Spartans) and on and on.

What we don't need more of are 5-7 schools taking the slot of a deserving school, even if that school is from a smaller conference. Let's make the bowl requirement a 7 win season and fill the bowls with only schools that reach that number whether they are from the Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, or whatever.

Losers shouldn't be rewarded with a bowl game. The season should mean something.

You can run a power based, physical style of rushing attack out of any formation. So many teams these days just have their OL stand up and block even when run blocking.

I got to see Dave Rimington play. Go back and look at the linemen on the championship teams of the 70's & 80's. They had size that you didn't see often in the 60's, they were lean and strong and fast. When Rimington snapped the ball his fire out for run blocking was the fastest I have ever seen. It almost looked like he was offsides on his own snaps. His first block was not his only block. Frequently you saw him make a second and then escort a runner looking for a third.

It was much better football back then. When Bo Jackson was running the ball at Auburn our linemen didn't have bellies hanging over their belts. They had massive shoulders and thick muscular legs, but the stomachs were flat and their waists were thin.

Modern football has gotten sloppy. We have Sumo wrestlers for linemen now. Let them fire out for two plays in a row and they cycle out so their fat azzes can catch their breath. Watching the Hannah brothers block at Alabama was almost as amazing as watching Rimington. This wasn't the case at just a few schools either. Most everyone who played was in shape. It was a much better game than this hooey today.

We have massive fat boys because they are harder to run around to get to a passing quarterback. That's why running backs rely on wide receivers to block when they pass the line of scrimmage. The fat boys are seldom over 10 yards down field if that.

I think the 70's and 80's were the best days of college football. In the past 40 years the kids have gotten bigger, but the true athletes have gotten fewer. We still have some great ones, but they are the exception. The result of all of this is the spread. You don't have to learn all of the techniques of blocking and know which play run in which direction calls for a specific block. You don't have to block down field as much, and you can use your hands while the defensive linemen can't. So now you can be fat and hold and get away with it as long as the jersey doesn't stretch from the back. It's absurd.

Well they saved the best game for the next to last one. TCU-Oregon was wild.

The conferences are realizing that the bowls and the CFP aren't going to be comparable long term. It's up to them to determine which revenue option they want to pursue going forward.

(01-02-2016 11:09 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The conferences are realizing that the bowls and the CFP aren't going to be comparable long term. It's up to them to determine which revenue option they want to pursue going forward.

They will use the duration of the CFP contract to gradually phase out some of the bowls. Then they will enhance the revenue of the conferences by scheduling that extra round of playoffs internal to the conferences. Realignment will finalize, conferences will have multiple divisons, semis, and a championship. The payout will be the equivalent of 3 major bowls for each conference. Then the best bowls, meaning the best paying can schedule the 5th through 7th positions for each of the major conferences, and perhaps the losers of the semis from each. The money stays about the same without having to play so many bowls. The CFP stays at 4 (the champs of each conference).

(01-02-2016 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 07:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Liberty Bowl goes to the AAC winner to face a P5 school. Since Liberty Bowl is hosted in Memphis? The AAC should have that tie in.
AAC should also get the Sugar Bowl tied in since it is played in the backyards of Tulane.

You get what I am getting at?

What?

He doesn't know.

While we're at it, Alabama is set to join the AAC because it's tired of running roughshod over the SEC, so they thought they'd go to a better conference. Either that or the AFC.

I think one of the problems is there are just too many bowls

I can watch a hell of a lot of football, but at some point when you are looking at back to back to back to back games and the first two or three are total snoozers I tune out

hell I did not watch much of any of Bama MSU I was just too worn out from really horrible football to watch any more really horrible football.....and yea most all the games that day "had meaning" still nothing is worse than bad football (shout out to the NFL)

also as was stated back on the first page there needs to be some adjustment in the conference tie ins for some of these lesser bowls because the match ups are just not exciting and they are too one sided to a degree and it just makes bad games overall

some of the realignment has hurt things as well.....with 14 teams in a conference and a ton of bowl tie ins you get teams from those conferences that are placed into bowls that are not competitive just because there is "space".....LSU deserved a better bowl opponent than Texas Tech and I understand the SEC wants to match teams up for a win, but letting A&M be cowards and avoid Texas last year (that surely aggies thought they would beat) and especially Texas Tech this year was just a joke

while last year with Arkansas and Texas was a "match up of teams with a history" most people probably did not tune in for most of that game

and this year I am not sure who LSU should have been matched up with because they would probably have throttled Louisville as well, but the A&M Texas Tech match up at least would have been more competitive most likely even if LSU and Texas Tech did draw a big live crowd

I think this year was unique to a degree with so many poor match ups and non competitive games, but there should be an ability to make some adjustments to try and prevent that

part of that probably starts with fewer bowls, 7 wins to go to a bowl and perhaps some looks back at the prior couple of seasons at where teams finished in the conference and how their bowls went before a match up is made

The big mistake was to not go with a +1 model.

One game after the bowls are played between the top 2 remaining teams. This way all of the bowls are relevant to some extent in determining the national champion.

Blowouts like Alabama vs. Michigan St. in bowl games then are eliminators. Instead they've been marketed as semi-finals and the surprise scores detract from the playoff atmosphere.

(01-02-2016 07:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-02-2016 07:19 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Liberty Bowl goes to the AAC winner to face a P5 school. Since Liberty Bowl is hosted in Memphis? The AAC should have that tie in.
AAC should also get the Sugar Bowl tied in since it is played in the backyards of Tulane.

You get what I am getting at?

What?

David don't get it either.

(01-02-2016 07:42 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Nothing needs fixed just yet. We can't use one year's worth of data and come up w/ an assumption that the system is broke.

Oh it's broke. It wasn't even put together properly. College football execs need to come to a couple of realizations:

1. Trying to be different is going to be it's downfall. Having people trying to determine what teams are worthy of the four playoffs spots it just simply stupid, not fair, and stupidly unfair.

2. College Sports is still a regional thing. And this is proven by the ratings. College football is so hell bent on trying to be different and better product than the NFL and that is simply never going to be the case. They would be wise to take a page or two from the NFL regarding it's playoff format.

3. Waiting a month to play the semi final games. Stupid. Games should be played two weeks after the season is over. The Championship Game should be played on New Years Day. Stop monkeying around with the dates. The semi-final games shouldn't be tied to the bowl games. It needs to be separate entities.

2 weeks? You have to give people time to plan (e.g. have enough money for tickets, get out of work, etc...) plus some students are doing finals two weeks out and it's Christmas season.

This is why the current format works so well in that regard as everyone is off, budgeted for bowls, Christmas and know where they need to go in enough time.

Championship game doesn't need to be played on NYD. That's silly. The semis need to be played on the Saturday before week 17.... Every year. If the Rose/Sugar want no part of that, take them out of the rotation. Let them host the Championship game. Next year the rotation falls back on Saturday, so I imagine the ratings will improve, but it's still NYE and a long weekend. But Saturday is the day to play two semis.

(01-03-2016 04:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  2 weeks? You have to give people time to plan (e.g. have enough money for tickets, get out of work, etc...) plus some students are doing finals two weeks out and it's Christmas season.

This is why the current format works so well in that regard as everyone is off, budgeted for bowls, Christmas and know where they need to go in enough time.

Give people time to plan??? Really??? This hasn't been a problem for the NFL or College Basketball March Madness.. If people know when these games are going to be played they would have plenty of time to prepare and have the money. You don't budget for a game in a month. You should be doing that way in advance. And give me a break about the students. They make up a small fraction of the attendance anyways.

First, the semifinals don't need to be played at a neutral site. Only the CG game needs to be played at a neutral site. This current format isn't going to work long term.

(01-03-2016 05:34 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Championship game doesn't need to be played on NYD. That's silly.

Why is it silly? No one is at work. School is out. The major bowl games played on NYD have outstanding TV viewership. Not understanding the silliness of this.

Not many people are working at 8:30pm either. You need a prime time slot so that the west coast can watch the game. A lot more college markets out there to consider, especially Central time. I'm an East coast guy so I typically don't watch the second half, but you are never going to see a SB 6:30pm time slot. No big television event/package besides the SB can do that. The sponsors want no part of it.

So playing that game on NYD or another weekday is inconsequential. There is nothing wrong with 3-4 weeks off. I don't think it's been proven over the years that the quality of football or games noticeably drop off. Show me a metric that says that?

(01-03-2016 06:20 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Not many people are working at 8:30pm either. You need a prime time slot so that the west coast can watch the game. A lot more college markets out there to consider, especially Central time. I'm an East coast guy so I typically don't watch the second half, but you are never going to see a SB 6:30pm time slot. No big television event/package besides the SB can do that. The sponsors want no part of it.

So playing that game on NYD or another weekday is inconsequential. There is nothing wrong with 3-4 weeks off. I don't think it's been proven over the years that the quality of football or games noticeably drop off. Show me a metric that says that?

You can get a prime time slot on New Year's Day. I'm not even understanding that point. You ever heard of out of sight, out of mind? That is why 3 -4 weeks off is too long. I got a metric for you alright.

The Rose Bowl has been played for a hundred years, and if everyone is out of sight, out of mind by Jan 1st, I doubt it would have remained such a long standing tradition. So there is the metric for you.

NYD prime time = Following Monday night prime time. There is little to no difference. Worse yet, if NYD falls on a Fri/Sat like this year, you are screwed. Put the game on a Monday night or Thursday night (my preference).

(01-03-2016 05:34 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Championship game doesn't need to be played on NYD. That's silly. The semis need to be played on the Saturday before week 17.... Every year. If the Rose/Sugar want no part of that, take them out of the rotation. Let them host the Championship game. Next year the rotation falls back on Saturday, so I imagine the ratings will improve, but it's still NYE and a long weekend. But Saturday is the day to play two semis.

Saturday is irrelevant to the conversation. I just joked with family on New Year's Day how it felt like a Saturday and yesterday felt like a Monday or Tuesday. Unless you work on NYE and especially if you don't have a ton of time off for the holidays, it is irrelevant because New Years and Christmas time will feel like a weekend.

(01-03-2016 05:50 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  Give people time to plan??? Really??? This hasn't been a problem for the NFL or College Basketball March Madness.. If people know when these games are going to be played they would have plenty of time to prepare and have the money. You don't budget for a game in a month. You should be doing that way in advance. And give me a break about the students. They make up a small fraction of the attendance anyways.

First, the semifinals don't need to be played at a neutral site. Only the CG game needs to be played at a neutral site. This current format isn't going to work long term.

You still give people more than enough time to plan (airfare is another and very critical aspect to remember, as it gets more expensive before 21 days out) and I say again, the students, have to prepare for finals. We won't pretend all the players are true student-athletes but many are and early-mid December is critical to them.

You could argue FCS does it just fine but when there's only 1-2 games that need to be played, there's no need to rush.