• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V_GBQclQfc]YouTube - Blood sucking mosquito[/ame]

The Utahs and Boise States of the world have many solutions open to them.

Immediate and easy. Play a schedule that has enough strength to get the BCS weight you need. Don't make these proposals about winning records against conferences and then play their bottom dwellers (and that is what the MWC proposal would incentivize). Play the big boys.

Less immediate and harder. Talk to the other traditional leaders in the smaller conferences out West and form a new conference with better teams.

Until you take these steps, stop trying to get access to what you do not deserve, either from your play on the field during the year or your investment in stadiums, training facilities, and building a sizeable fan base.
 
Upvote 0
The Utahs and Boise States of the world have many solutions open to them.

Immediate and easy. Play a schedule that has enough strength to get the BCS weight you need. Don't make these proposals about winning records against conferences and then play their bottom dwellers (and that is what the MWC proposal would incentivize). Play the big boys.

That is the same argument I have often advanced.

However, Utah played - and beat - #6, #7, #18 and #25. And you can't blame them for playing a lame Michigan team - they put them on the schedule when Michigan was still Michigan.

I am strongly anti-playoff. But Utah is the first team from a non-BCS conference that has a case.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1424405; said:
I am strongly anti-playoff. But Utah is the first team from a non-BCS conference that has a case.

I am also anti-playoff. But something ought to be done for these teams that win all of their games, and still have no chance. I'm not saying that simply winning all your games should give you the right to play for the national championship. Otherwise, I'd imagine that some of the teams would leave their big-name conferences and join wimpy conferences. Or, at the minimum, teams would continue to schedule inferior opponents to improve their chances at an unbeaten season.

I like the idea of the stronger teams from non-BCS conferences joining together to form a pretty good conference. I think there was a thread earlier about the idea of the WAC and the MWAC joining/separating into a good conference and a not-good conference. (It wasn't a serious discussion amongst the conferences - just an idea a fan had.) I'd go for that - a conference made up of the current best mid-majors would match the existing BCS conferences pretty well.
 
Upvote 0
Thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who thinks a) a playoff crowns a true champion "on the field" and b) a playoff wouldn't negate the regular season:

Atlantic 10 basketball tournament
ACC basketball tournament
Big 12 basketball tournament
Big Ten basketball tournament
MAC basketball tournament
OVC basketball tournament
Pac-10 basketball tournament
 
Upvote 0
OU - PSU

......................OU - USC

Bama - USC

............................................USC - UF

Texas - Utah

......................Texas - UF

Florida - TxTech



Where does NW or PSU bball compare to that list?
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1429989; said:
Let me know when those tournaments begin resembling a 4 or 8 team playoff of elite teams, not a mashup of a few good teams and a pile of mediocre upstarts.
I think the fact that the pile of mediocre upstarts is knocking off the top seeds left and right in the highest-profile tournaments further emphasizes the point.
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;1429997; said:
I think the fact that the pile of mediocre upstarts is knocking off the top seeds left and right in the highest-profile tournaments further emphasizes the point.
which is why I'd have a problem with a tournament that includes a pile of mediocre upstarts, say 16. I don't think a 4 or 8 team playoff does anything of the sort.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1429998; said:
which is why I'd have a problem with a tournament that includes a pile of mediocre upstarts, say 16. I don't think a 4 or 8 team playoff does anything of the sort.
For various reasons, though, I don't think anything less than 16 is realistic to expect. I mean, given the expansion of the basketball tournament and the rapid proliferation of bowls, extra regular season games, and conference championship games in the name of money, do you think that once they instituted a 4-team playoff that it would stay that way for long?
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;1429988; said:
Thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who thinks a) a playoff crowns a true champion "on the field" and b) a playoff wouldn't negate the regular season:

Atlantic 10 basketball tournament
ACC basketball tournament
Big 12 basketball tournament
Big Ten basketball tournament
MAC basketball tournament
OVC basketball tournament
Pac-10 basketball tournament

IMO the situations don't compare for a few reasons...

1. Basketball and Football are much different games. Basketball depends on putting a ball through a relatively small hole to score points. If a team with significantly less talent gets hot for a stretch of the game or a team with significantly more talent goes unbelievable cold for a stretch, upsets can easily happen. Also, with football there are more players on the field, so teams with greater overall talent have more individual matchups to exploit.

2. In the postseason tournaments for basketball, weaker teams have more to play for than the higher ranked teams. We've seen that with bubble teams like Baylor, and Ok St. in the Big 12 tourny specifically have more to play for than teams like Kansas and Oklahoma who already have high seeds in the tournament locked up. I even remember a coach from a team that was upset (maybe Uconn but I don't recall) saying that it was better that his team lost so they could rest up and get ready for the NCAA tournament.


I actually think that a playoff in football would do a better job crowning a national champion that the NCAA basketball tournament does...
 
Upvote 0
aurorabuckeye13;1430029; said:
2. In the postseason tournaments for basketball, weaker teams have more to play for than the higher ranked teams. We've seen that with bubble teams like Baylor, and Ok St. in the Big 12 tourny specifically have more to play for than teams like Kansas and Oklahoma who already have high seeds in the tournament locked up. I even remember a coach from a team that was upset (maybe Uconn but I don't recall) saying that it was better that his team lost so they could rest up and get ready for the NCAA tournament.


This. SC doesn't win the Pac-10 tourney but for the fact that they wanted it more than every other team.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top