The Hipocrascy of it All

[DallasGreen]

The NCAA BB tourney with 64 teams is arguably the greatest event in college sports. Compare it to the weak FB playoffs starting in 2015 with just 4 teams. Is there really much difference from the present mythical "National Championship"?. I say it's not even close to a true playoff w/o at least a 16 team tourney.The new system like the present one just makes the rich richer.

Edited March 29, 2013 by DallasGreen

[ragpicker]

HYPOCRISY, but I agree.

[DallasGreen]

GUESS THERE IS NO SPELL CHECK ON TOPICS, BUT WHY CAN'T THE GENERAL PUBLIC SEE THEY'VE BEEN DUPED ON THIS BEING BILLED AS A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WHEN BB HAS THE PERFECT MODEL. HIGH SCHOOL PLAYERS PLAY AS MANY GAMES TO GET TO A STATE CHAMPIONSHIP AS THIS WOULD REQUIRE SO THAT DOG WON'T HUNT ON TOO MUCH TIME AWAY.

[jdennis82]

I disagree. The hoops tourney crowns the team who either got hot or had favorable match-ups.

The football season crowns a much more legitimate champion.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I disagree. The hoops tourney crowns the team who either got hot or had favorable match-ups.

The football season crowns a much more legitimate champion.

To a large extent, I agree with your second sentence. However, at least in basketball, the championship is won or lost on the court. In football, it is mostly on paper. Let me rephrase that--in the highest division of football only, it is mostly on paper--every other division is fully capable of having a playoff to settle matters on the field of play, where championships are supposed to be won or lost.

[UNT90]

I disagree. The hoops tourney crowns the team who either got hot or had favorable match-ups.

The football season crowns a much more legitimate champion.

I guess the NBA, NFL, MBL, NHL, College baseball, college men's and women's basketball, volleyball, soccer, diving, wrestling, and every other college sport have it wrong?

But, College Football and the WWF have it right?

[greenminer]

I disagree. The hoops tourney crowns the team who either got hot or had favorable match-ups.

And manipulating OOC in football is not creating favorable matchups?

[Arkstfan]

Baseball used to have teams play 156 or such games. The team left standing played best of 7 vs the other team from the other league that had done the same. Now the "best team" that finished with the fourth or best record after 162 regular season games can be crowned the best.

NCAA basketball has become so tournament oriented that the regular season now has little meaning.

At the other end of the spectrum college football's system and arguably new system are such a small playoff that a great team can be left out while a school with the right resume can manipulate its schedule to be deemed one of the best.

[jdennis82]

My primary point is that a single elimination tourney in any sport other than football doesn't accurately end with the best team as champion because all it takes is one bad game to derail an entire season.

By comparison, football uses the entire body of work to determine its champion. In fact, it could be said that increasing the playoff field thereby requiring the eventual champ to play multiple games opens up the possibility for injury to have a greater impact on the end result.

[Rudy]

I disagree. The hoops tourney crowns the team who either got hot or had favorable match-ups.

The football season crowns a much more legitimate champion, if you play for the right conference and have enough money.

FIFY

[JesseMartin]

Just trying to point out that a lot of these replies show that the new format is a moderated response to the problem, but no, I won't quote all of them, but rather just condense while pointing out a couple of other minutiae.

First, yes, the risk of injury would be problematic with a 64-team format. Also keep in mind that this is a key reason why the football season includes less games than does basketball. However, the OOC scheduling, championship games in many conferences, and a ranking system - all of which are also used in basketball, but hold more weight per game in football - help with this problem.

Now, the limited playoff format is a step in the right direction, though I can see them realistically adding one more level of playoff games (thus doubling the field in the playoffs) fairly soon. Not as strenuous as a 64-team playoff, but a bit more inclusive than the most recent changes.

As to the conferences and money, I think aside from the longstanding requests from fans, mid-majors, etc., this is where it all came about. Love them or hate them, the Obama administration, along with a few high-ranking officials from various states, schools, and conferences, were looking into whether the current and previous championship formats were illegally anti-competitive. Though I didn't hear about anything going public in terms of why it all calmed down, I would be willing to assume that the recent changes were made as a very quiet out-of-court agreement, since a lengthy series of court and/or mediation battles would probably incur more legal costs than the difference in bowl-profit-sharing would have been worth.

As it now stands, if I'm not mistaken, a mid-major team from a non-power-conference can get into a playoff game based on about the same requirements previously needed to attain a BCS Bowl berth. Thus, they could play their way into, and feasibly win, the championship game.

So, though I personally think that a 16-team field would be the perfect point of moderation between the risk of injury and the need for fairness in equity, the recent changes have taken into account:

1) Field of teams playing in the division

2) Greater openness of access

3) Existing paradigms of strength of schedule, rankings, and games per season

4) Usefulness of the upper tier of bowl games.

Though I hadn't included #1 in my previous remarks, I think it's important to point out that there are over 300 teams playing for a chance at the D-1 BB tourney, but only around 120-130 in a given year with an opportunity to play for a FB championship in FBS (depending upon the number of teams with postseason sanctions and the new teams being granted FBS status).

Edited April 1, 2013 by JesseMartin

[GL2Greatness]

really a "debate" and topic that comes out of ignorance and envy

even 20 or 30 years ago it was not nearly as cheap or easy to fly all over the country for fans or teams.....football teams have 80+ players which is way more than any other sport and flying them all over the country is not cheap or easy

there is a risk of injury in football that is much greater than most sports, it is impossible to have games less than a week apart which means even if you choose a single venue or a few venues teams and fans will be staying in hotels or traveling back and forth to see more than a single game.....until very recently it was pretty much impossible to have a football field host games back to back to back like a basketball court and using the crappy old style artificial turf only meant the chance of injury went up greatly and even artificial turf can have wear and tear that needs to be looked at after a game especially the old crap

so again having a single venue or a few venues where "football fans" could show up and watch more than one game in a day or two was not possible like it is in basketball and other sports...even pro football plays at the home venue of the teams with the best record until the final game....and before some idiot claims college football could do the same there are dozens if not more college towns and college venues that could not host a playoff game of any significance without leaving a lot of fans sitting at home without the ability to get to that venue easily, get a room, or get a ticket....what a great way to run a sport into the ground by giving the "little guy" (the one that never delivers a damn thing in terms of fans, viewers, or revenues) a "chance" only to have that game played in front of 30,000 fans in some dump while the team that consistently sells out a 60 or 80K or larger stadium still has to fill a large part of the stands, but a large part of their fan base goes without the ability or opportunity to actually support their team in person....not to mention the logistics of getting a hotel room for the visiting team, the TV crews, the officials, and on and on with short notice.....only a real moron can't see the numerous issues with that

and on the flip side with more than a game or two for a playoff at a "neutral site" again you have the issue of the fans the teams seeing a game, then either waiting a week in a hotel (if their team wins) or returning home and then flying back in for the game again......since the VAST majority of college sports programs including football programs lose money and most teams struggle to sell out their stadiums on a week by week basis even with months of advance notice about the schedule only a true dolt thinks those same teams will suddenly have fans showing up out of the wood work to go to multiple games out of town on very short notice

so either way "playoffs" at the home of the team with the better record or "playoffs" at a neutral site past more than one round or two is going to be a huge joke over the long haul as teams sneek in occasionally and then their fans just can't or won't show up and their town and venue turn out to be a disaster for the visiting teams, officials, and TV crews.....they pick the date and place of the super bowl years in advance for a reason and same with the MNC for college football......so that BFE does not need to suddenly need to try and support 20 or 30K fans and officials and TV people when they most they have ever had to support was 17,000 with 6 months notice that the game was going on that day in the regular season

then there is the whole concept of how the bowl games came into being....the individual conferences conceived those games, started them, built them, and supported....none of the turds in the CUSA or Belt had anything at all to do with making the Rose Bowl into a winner and they deserve ZERO of that revenue because they had nothing to do with any of it....same for the Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl or any other major bowl game and even today they bring nothing to the table in terms of revenues or fans upport for those types of bowls.....those types of teams have their bowl games like the NO Bowl and the total and complete lack of overall support both in terms of fans and finances whows why those teams have nothing to cry about or to demand from anyone especially financially

the BCS was an agreement amongst bowl games that CONFERENCES started and that CONFERENCEES built back when half the teams in the CUSA and the Belt and the like were playing D1-AA ball in front of 5K fans and losing money every week doing it....there is not a chance in hell any of them have a right to complain about the conferences and teams and fans and viewers that built those bowls and supported those bowls "get rich" while those that have never done a damn thing for themselves or anyone else sit around and cry for a piece of something they had nothing to do with....here is a concept demand the NETWORKS pay big money for the NO Bowl and charge huge money for NO Bowl tickets and then when the networks say F off and the fans don't show up you can collect what you "deserve' and you will be "rich"......stepping up 30 or 50 years after teams, fans and conferences have made something happen and demandng a piece of it is a bunch of BS.....go out and make something for yourselves and then you can have all you "earn" from that instead of sitting around with crappy facilities, crappy fans, no fan support and no one caring to do anything about except holding out the begging bowl and complaining that those that have fan support, viewership, facilities, and that have invested in their program bother to get a return on that instead of handing it to leeches and mooches

there are 4 spots now schedule someone besides crap and actually manage to beat them in front of more than a few thousand fans and you ca actually have a chance....Boise, Hawaii, Utah, TCU, and the like have done it....so EARN it like they did

[JesseMartin]

Again GL2G made a bunch of points that may not be popular on here but many are valid. The part that stands out to me is about the conferences building the big bowls.

This is probably another thing that was brought up during the recent legal discussions. Deserving bowl berths, etc. raises a question of equal access when those bowls evolve into something more than just a "PAC vs. B1G" matchup. Since the methods of building up exclusivity could be construed to involve the bowls that were borne of that standard, then if there is a concern - as must be the case since there has been a mediated response to avoid legal battles - that would involve everything that came with it, inclusive of bowls and other accolades and dollars.

So from a personal or fan perspective, it may seem unfair to expect that the bowls that came from conference success would be required to provide access to outsiders. But from a legal perspective, it's a matter of which laws and guidelines and policies may have been violated, whether presently or over the course of building these conferences.

Since the monies collected, via multi-state conference agreements, television rights, use of public property for bowl-related events, etc.; national oversight by the NCAA and other regulatory bodies; and the use of public funds to pay for the administration that oversees the athletic departments of some of the schools, though not the departments themselves, all involve the public trust at a federal level, this became a matter of not only national interest, but also of official political and legal involvement.

Like it or not, the only real way to prevent something like this from happening would likely be to make it an issue of states' rights, and create in-state conferences with ownership of bowls granted to either a given state's conference or to a separate entity, public or private, grounded in that state and provide access only to invitees determined by that state, conference, or entity.

Involving huge amounts of public money, tax dollars, and interstate commerce - as well as interstate and federal agreements with conferences and regulatory bodies - would require this all to be a matter of federal importance. So, as I said before, the Power Conferences likely realized this, since they have real lawyers with huge retainers and equally huge per diems and court costs, and since the long-term profitability of positioning Alabama in a conference with UAB would be ill-advised. They saw these gaping holes when the salience of the issue increased, and found the best possible way to retain as much money and power as possible while granting a bit of access necessary to avoid the possibility of even more bizarre realignments and rule-changes than we've seen of late.

[mgfan]

If the FCS can do it then the FBS also can. Every conference winner is automatically in along with at large-bids to get to a 16 team playoff. Make the major bowls the sites of the semi-finals and

finals. It can and should be done.The major schools will not let it happen because the possibility of the loss of money and having schools like unt used in the same sentence as them.

Edited April 1, 2013 by mgfan

[UNT90]

My primary point is that a single elimination tourney in any sport other than football doesn't accurately end with the best team as champion because all it takes is one bad game to derail an entire season.

By comparison, football uses the entire body of work to determine its champion. In fact, it could be said that increasing the playoff field thereby requiring the eventual champ to play multiple games opens up the possibility for injury to have a greater impact on the end result.

Everyone ALLOWED to compete for the national title in playoff sports (again, basically every other competitive sport besides college football) know that they will be expected to be the best team at the end of the season and can't point to an early season won over a respected team to attempt to legitimize a national championship argument because it is decided on the field.

The A's were better than the Rangers for one day last season. Should we take away their division ritle? Using your logic, the Rangers led the division by far the most days, so they are the division champion, right?

In every other sport, everyone knows what they have to do to win a title before the season begins. If their coach's don't prepare them to be good late, that's on them.

But in college football, done teams aren't even allowed to prove their worthiness for a national title (any program outside the big 5 conferences), and even those that are allowed to compete must rely on a political system to get into the national title game.

Hell, 2 years ago the eventual national champion got into the national title game despite losing AT HOME to the very team that they were to square off against in the national title game. And that game was played Nov. 5th, 2011. Alabama didn't even play in the CONFERENCE championship game, yet were allowed to play for the national title? Care to explain how that works?

Win it on the field/court/diamond. That's how true championships are won.