College Playoff

[Best Buckeye]

here's my playoff structure;
First the two lowest ranked teams play as soon as someone can tell definitly, without any doubt on anyone's mind who they are.
Then the winner plays the third lowest team and that winner plays the next in line and so on until the two teams remaining play for the NC.
Who gets to decide the initial ranking you ask?
Why the people wanting a playoff do. DUH

 

[Muck]

They've done what they can to play the game. Boysee, however, has not.

Actually I disagree with that statement.

BSU has played the cards they've been deal to the best of their ability.

They have zero chance of being picked up by an AQ league so their only option was to leverage the media sympathy as well as the interest it generated into larger checks from bigger programs.

They've done an excellent job of that.

 

[Mrstickball]

For what its worth, the win percentage against BCS AQ teams has been going up. For 1999-2009, it was 38%. For 2002-current, its jumped to 44%.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Edit: Rhetorical question: does anyone else think that TCU and Utah going 14-7 or 19-11 in BCS AQ conferences would be impressive? That's essentially what we'll get to see starting next year. Maybe they'll be better than that.

If Utah falls on their face in the P12 next year while TCU is a second to fourth place team in a pathetic Big East, then that should rather emphatically prove Gee's point.

 

[zincfinger]

So then what do you want? You complain that they can get up and beat teams like Alabama and Wisconsin in BCS games, because its just 1 game a year, then you don't want the solution to fix it.

What do you want then?

Seriously, what I would like to see happen is for national polls and the national championship race to only include major conference teams, for the BigEast to lose its major conference status, and perhaps for the BigXII and Pac-10 to pick up the strongest 2-3 mid-majors on a provisional basis.

TCU, Boise, and others have fielded good teams in recent years, teams that can go toe-to-toe with just about anyone on any given day. The problem is that there are 10-20 teams in the country almost every year that can do that exact same thing. Most of those 10-20 have to play 6 or more opponents-with-a-pulse per season, hence their non-perfect records. The good mid-majors who are playing maybe 2-3 opponents-with-a-pulse per season shouldn't excessively benefit from that. And they already are.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Actually I disagree with that statement.

BSU has played the cards they've been deal to the best of their ability.

They have zero chance of being picked up by an AQ league so their only option was to leverage the media sympathy as well as the interest it generated into larger checks from bigger programs.

They've done an excellent job of that.

I suppose. I mean, I have said before - at least I think I have - that I at least respect that Boise seems committed to building their program. They've still got a ways to go, IMO, but they are in Boise Idaho, so... I would be happier with them if they'd get a green field (the blue gimmick has served its purpose, now it just screams "we're a gimmick") and took a more Florida State tactic until they prove they belong and are an asset rather than a whiny bitch saying "gimme your money!" If you recall, FSU took the "We'll play anyone anywhere" when BB started, they paid their dues, they didn't demand anything (or Home and Homes) and earned their respect.

Boise has done some things to earn respect. They have won some big games, and I don't want to discount that to the point of zero. But, in my view, they're just not there yet. It may be they can't ever "get there" in my view - but... so what? No one cries about me thinking the same thing about Troy or Miami, Oh, or Buffalo.

 

[Mrstickball]

Seriously, what I would like to see happen is for national polls and the national championship race to only include major conference teams, for the BigEast to lose its major conference status, and perhaps for the BigXII and Pac-10 to pick up the strongest 2-3 mid-majors on a provisional basis.

TCU, Boise, and others have fielded good teams in recent years, teams that can go toe-to-toe with just about anyone on any given day. The problem is that there are 10-20 teams in the country almost every year that can do that exact same thing. Most of those 10-20 have to play 6 or more opponents-with-a-pulse per season, hence their non-perfect records. The good mid-majors who are playing maybe 2-3 opponents-with-a-pulse per season shouldn't excessively benefit from that. And they already are.

But what is the practicality of these conferences picking up the mid-majors when they become relevant? I'd argue the only reason that we've seen all of the re-alignment fallout for the MWC, WAC and Pac-10 are due to the Big-10 taking Nebraska.

Then I have to ask: If you believe it is fully practical that mid-majors get picked up as needed, will you have any objection to the Big-10 adding a MAC team if they ever become as relevant as Boise or TCU?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

will you have any objection to the Big-10 adding a MAC team if they ever become as relevant as Boise or TCU?

 

[muffler dragon]

Actually I disagree with that statement.

BSU has played the cards they've been deal to the best of their ability.

They have zero chance of being picked up by an AQ league so their only option was to leverage the media sympathy as well as the interest it generated into larger checks from bigger programs.

They've done an excellent job of that.

I suppose. I mean, I have said before - at least I think I have - that I at least respect that Boise seems committed to building their program. They've still got a ways to go, IMO, but they are in Boise Idaho, so... I would be happier with them if they'd get a green field (the blue gimmick has served its purpose, now it just screams "we're a gimmick") and took a more Florida State tactic until they prove they belong and are an asset rather than a whiny bitch saying "gimme your money!" If you recall, FSU took the "We'll play anyone anywhere" when BB started, they paid their dues, they didn't demand anything (or Home and Homes) and earned their respect.

Boise has done some things to earn respect. They have won some big games, and I don't want to discount that to the point of zero. But, in my view, they're just not there yet. It may be they can't ever "get there" in my view - but... so what? No one cries about me thinking the same thing about Troy or Miami, Oh, or Buffalo.

Not that I need to input on behalf of Muck, but I believe that he's mostly talking about the academic side of BSU holding them back. They'll never get into a conference that gives a shit about academics.

 

[zincfinger]

But what is the practicality of these conferences picking up the mid-majors when they become relevant? I'd argue the only reason that we've seen all of the re-alignment fallout for the MWC, WAC and Pac-10 are due to the Big-10 taking Nebraska.

Then I have to ask: If you believe it is fully practical that mid-majors get picked up as needed, will you have any objection to the Big-10 adding a MAC team if they ever become as relevant as Boise or TCU?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "practicality". Is my proposal going to be adopted? No. Is the BigEast going to be relegated to mid-major status? No. Are mid-majors going to be excluded from the polls? No (and lucky for them). But in an ideal world, TCU could be taken into the BigXII fold on a provisional basis. If they can't hack it, they're gone. Boise could be taken into the BigXII or Pac-10, again on a provisional basis. Most likely, both of those programs would become middling conference competitors over the long haul, and the conferences could jettison them if they wished. As for the MAC, there's no MAC team that has been solid (i.e. able to be competitive with decent major conference teams) for more than a year or two. So no, there's clearly no reason why a MAC team would be remotely considered for BigTen inclusion.

 

[muffler dragon]

If Utah falls on their face in the P12 next year while TCU is a second to fourth place team in a pathetic Big East, then that should rather emphatically prove Gee's point.

I see both of those easily occurring next year.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

As for the MAC, there's no MAC team that has been solid (i.e. able to be competitive with decent major conference teams) for more than a year or two. So no, there's clearly no reason why a MAC team would be remotely considered for BigTen inclusion.

Even if there was a MAC version of Boise, would they meet all the other standards of Big Ten membership: AAU membership, solid undergrad standards, revenue, stadium size, adding television sets, recruiting footprint, national branding etc? Fredo of Ohio meets the undergrad standards but nothing else. Buffalo meets the AAU membership standard, but nothing else. None of the other MAC schools qualify in a single area. Nebraska barely crossed several of these thresholds. MAC schools aren't even in the same building.

In some of the more far fetched mid-major daydreaming, I've actually read arguments where teams should move up or down a division based on recent success. For instance, Northern Illinois might get bumped into the Big Ten, and IU dropped down. In other words, in their eternal quest for "fairness," some would actually strip the Big Ten of its right to associate with schools of its choosing.

 

[Muck]

Most likely, both of those programs would become middling conference competitors over the long haul, and the conferences could jettison them if they wished.

Let's not forget that TCU was exactly that for 70 years in the SWC.

194-259-22 43.2

 

[zincfinger]

Even if there was a MAC version of Boise, would they meet all the other standards of Big Ten membership...

No, of course not. But I'm trying to give maximum benefit of the doubt and consider only recent, moderately sustained, football team success. Even by that inadequate standard, the idea of a MAC team to the BigTen is laughable.

Let's not forget that TCU was exactly that for 70 years in the SWC.

194-259-22 43.2

Indeed. Maybe they'd do better with a second go-around. Or maybe not.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Not that I need to input on behalf of Muck, but I believe that he's mostly talking about the academic side of BSU holding them back. They'll never get into a conference that gives a shit about academics.

Quite true. But, that's also something that's in Boysee's control. At least in the way I view it. That is - if Boysee wanted to commit to academic's (they'd accept a transfer from Tater ) they need only raise their standards to the appropriate levels.