College Playoff

[Buckeye86]

you guys, this is not good. now 4 SEC teams get to play #fuckespn

Hey look, more money. Thank god the student athletes are still amateurs, it really protects the integrity of the game.

Money.

 

[matcar]

Hey look, more money. Thank god the student athletes are still amateurs, it really protects the integrity of the game.

Money.

This comment is on the money.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Count de Monet! De Monet!

 

[Piney]

Sounding like we're getting playoffs starting in 2014..

But it seems like the powers to be refuse to have on campus for first round which I think is stupid, why not have the first round on campus?

Yeah, the refusal of semifinals at on-campus sites is frustrating. But I can see what they are doing. Its not just about the money, it is about being able to budget how much money they will get. If they can guarantee the teams with 90-100+ k stadiums to be hosting they would be all for it. But found it funny they mentioned Oregon & TCU small stadiums. God forbid them not selling enough $500+ tickets and big money suites that they can bid out too. Almost to the point where they don't care if these semi-final games are not sold out.

But more importantly, they want to be able to budget how much money they will be getting versus having flucuations if a string of years have small stadiums.

But like Mili said, once they expand further, on-campus games will HAVE to be part of it.

you guys, this is not good. now 4 SEC teams get to play #fuckespn

It will never be 4... now 3 on the other hand...

This has to be a big debate point in those meetings and when it goes out to vote. I DOUBT this will be settled til after the University presidents vote and get feedback. That and money distribution will be the last things decided.

Found it interesting that of course Slive wants the top 4 teams and that Scott hinted that strength of schedule HAS to be part of this due to some teams not playing anyone in their non-conference schedule *cough*SEC*cough*Wisconsin*cough*

 

[Buckeye86]

Its not just about the money, it is about [...] how much money they will get.

I find this amusing. Money.

 

[zincfinger]

...Scott hinted that strength of schedule HAS to be part of this due to some teams not playing anyone in their non-conference schedule *cough*SEC*cough*Wisconsin*cough*

Personally, I think that criticism applies to Wisconsin more than to the SEC. I don't really have a problem with it if SEC teams only occasionally play tough non-conference games - and some of them do typically have one big-name non-conference opponent per year. But their conference schedule is generally tough enough that they don't need much non-conference addition. Because the BigTen's a little weaker from top-to-bottom, BigTen teams who want to be national contenders should play a yearly non-conference schedule like OSU's: one name opponent, one decent opponent, and two tune-ups. And BigEast or mid-major teams (but I repeat myself) who want to be taken seriously should be expected to play at least three quality non-conference opponents per year.

 

[Bucky32]

Not sure about you guys, but where I'm from, Austin Peay counts as a name opponent.

 

[Zurp]

Yeah, the refusal of semifinals at on-campus sites is frustrating. But I can see what they are doing. Its not just about the money, it is about being able to budget how much money they will get. If they can guarantee the teams with 90-100+ k stadiums to be hosting they would be all for it. But found it funny they mentioned Oregon & TCU small stadiums. God forbid them not selling enough $500+ tickets and big money suites that they can bid out too. Almost to the point where they don't care if these semi-final games are not sold out.

I think my problem with the non-home sites is the same everyone else probably has: it's basically ensuring "home-like" sites for southern teams. Plus, some fanbases don't travel well. Blarg - I REALLY hate this plan.

Dear Jim Delaney,
You hit home runs with the Big Ten Network and by getting Nebraska into the Big Ten. But then you sucked a big one with the way the divisions were set up, and then again with the lousy names of the divisions. You have time to turn it around - fight for home stadium semi-finals. Don't wuss out on this one.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

With this talk of strength of schedules, I'm reminded of this fine piece of thujone artwork:

link

Picasso of our times, says I.

 

[BigWoof31]

You have time to turn it around - fight for home stadium semi-finals. Don't wuss out on this one.

Curious - is he the only conference commish fighting for this policy?

 

[zincfinger]

Not sure about you guys, but where I'm from, Austin Peay counts as a name opponent.

And there's a reasonable rationale for spending your September beating the Austin Peay's of the world 85-3. But I think there's a practical downside, too. Wisconsin's gotten strong enough that they can compete on the big stage, and I feel like the athletic department is maybe holding the program back a little bit by basically limiting the number of big, high-profile games the team can play in. The profile of the program would be raised if they played an Oklahoma, or even an NC State in September, instead of playing a bunch of games no one cares about.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

And there's a reasonable rationale for spending your September beating the Austin Peay's of the world 85-3. But I think there's a practical downside, too. Wisconsin's gotten strong enough that they can compete on the big stage, and I feel like the athletic department is maybe holding the program back a little bit by basically limiting the number of big, high-profile games the team can play in.

Hey - not everyone has the cajones to schedule the Toledos and the Appalachian States of the world.

 

[Bucky32]

And there's a reasonable rationale for spending your September beating the Austin Peay's of the world 85-3. But I think there's a practical downside, too. Wisconsin's gotten strong enough that they can compete on the big stage, and I feel like the athletic department is maybe holding the program back a little bit by basically limiting the number of big, high-profile games the team can play in.

It would seem they've at least caught on a little bit to the criticism. They certainly won't be playing Alabama any time soon, but they're in talks with BYU, and they've got Virginia Tech and Washington on the schedule in the coming years.

 

[Buckeye86]

It would seem they've at least caught on a little bit to the criticism. They certainly won't be playing Alabama any time soon, but they're in talks with BYU, and they've got Virginia Tech and Washington on the schedule in the coming years.

But how are you supposed to get beat in bowl games if you lose to an out of conference opponent or two each year?

And actually, I just came up with a theory about Wisconsin football that I'd like to bounce off of you for a moment.

Your brand of offense works a lot better against teams that are battered and bruised in the heart of the conference schedule. Against fresh teams, not so much. Thus your struggles early in the year against shitty teams and in bowl games after significant recuperation time for the opponent.

Schedule quality healthy opponents at the beginning of the year at your own risk.

Thoughts?

 

[Bucky32]

But how are you supposed to get beat in bowl games if you lose to an out of conference opponent or two each year?

And actually, I just came up with a theory about Wisconsin football that I'd like to bounce off of you for a moment.

Your brand of offense works a lot better against teams that are battered and bruised in the heart of the conference schedule. Against fresh teams, not so much. Thus your struggles early in the year against [Mark May]ty teams and in bowl games after significant recuperation time for the opponent.

Schedule quality healthy opponents at the beginning of the year at your own risk.

Thoughts?

Maybe. I don't know if Wisconsin is any more or less beaten up once they hit the Big Ten schedule than the other teams. Obviously playing in Camp Randall is a decided advantage (especially at night), and we've seen them struggle on the road in the Big Ten in the past. I think your theory holds some validity though.

As far as the bowl game struggles go, and I've said this for a while: Bielema is a good coach during the week. He is a good prepping coach. He is NOT a good gameday coach. At all. He'd be better suited as an assistant coach.