dressedcheeseside
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 14,240
SoAnother problem with only letting conference champs in the playoffs is that all OOC games are thus rendered moot as regards the championship.
SoAnother problem with only letting conference champs in the playoffs is that all OOC games are thus rendered moot as regards the championship.
Did it ever?The NCAA NIL rule is supposed to not allow offering a recruit any $ deals to come to a specific school. This would seem to be a violation but does the NCAA enforce anything any more.
So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
I think what you will see is a 10 game conference schedule and the possible elimination of FCS opponents as well. THAT will basically be a deathblow to smaller schools who depend on the payout for the game to fund their athletic programs.So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
The way I see it, if nonconference games don’t matter, that frees up teams to schedule very compelling matchups that the fans want to see. No more cupcakes.So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
I can envision contenders playing a meaningless OOC game with their second strings or using it as a scrimmage. Compelling matchups won't be so compelling.The way I see it, if nonconference games don’t matter, that frees up teams to schedule very compelling matchups that the fans want to see. No more cupcakes.
Most NCAA championships work that way. Conference champions get automatic spots in the playoffs and some number of teams get at-large spots. High schools in Georgia determine playoff spots and seeding based solely on conference records. I can't think of any other major sport that determines championships by wishy-washy standards that change from year to year. (How important are high-quality wins?, How important is it that losses not be bad losses?, How important is the "eye-test"?)I can envision contenders playing a meaningless OOC game with their second strings or using it as a scrimmage. Compelling matchups won't be so compelling.
I don't think it's good to have games that don't count toward the championship.
If a contender loses an OOC game, the ever-ready excuse will be that they weren't trying to win because it didn't matter.
With 14 and 16-team conferences, the conference schedules are uneven, let alone the OOC schedules. Most sports have everyone playing everyone else in the conference. Not so with football. You'll end up with conference champions having inferior records against a softer schedule in the playoff, while a team with a better record against a tougher schedule sits it out. That's wrong. All games should count toward the championship, IMO.Most NCAA championships work that way. Conference champions get automatic spots in the playoffs and some number of teams get at-large spots. High schools in Georgia determine playoff spots and seeding based solely on conference records. I can't think of any other major sport that determines championships by wishy-washy standards that change from year to year. (How important are high-quality wins?, How important is it that losses not be bad losses?, How important is the "eye-test"?)
If the playoff sports are filled by conference champions, then the conferences should be freed up to decide how to determine who the conference champion is. The ACC would already not have two division champions playing each other in the championship game if it wasn't for the other P5 conferences preventing the change.
If the ACC had leeway, the 2012 conference championship would have been FSU against Clemson instead of GT. However, in order to have a championship game it was mandated to have two divisions and the two division champions play each other. Which gets back to my original point. FBS football is having to change, modify, alter, and add conditions constantly to try to get the "system" to work. If they just used the same system that every other NCAA sport uses, it wouldn't take so much tweaking and explaining.
The conferences would be able to decide how to determine the championship and who the champion is. If a team with a bad record becomes the conference champion, blame the conference not the overall system.With 14 and 16-team conferences, the conference schedules are uneven, let alone the OOC schedules. Most sports have everyone playing everyone else in the conference. Not so with football. You'll end up with conference champions having inferior records against a softer schedule in the playoff, while a team with a better record against a tougher schedule sits it out. That's wrong. All games should count toward the championship, IMO.
That's an interesting idea. Four teams make the conference playoff and still 12 games for everybody except the two finalists. One less OOC game for everybody.Like I said, the conference championship should not be restricted to two divisions and the leader of each division. If the conference had 16 teams, you could have four divisions and during the last week of the season have the four division leaders start a four team conference playoff. The remaining twelve teams could play against each other to get the 12th game. Going with such a system, even if a team with a lesser record because the conference champion it would be because they did it on the field against the best teams in the conference.
High schools in Georgia go strictly off of region games. (At least every one that I have seen) A team could go winless outside of their region but win every region game and they would be a number one seed in the playoffs. Some teams do schedule easy games out of conference. Some teams schedule very tough teams out of conference.That's an interesting idea. Four teams make the conference playoff and still 12 games for everybody except the two finalists. One less OOC game for everybody.
I'm not saying having only conference champions in a playoff is necessarily a bad idea overall but having OOC games that don't matter regarding the championship seems a problem. There would be no incentive for 'Bama, OSU, and the like to schedule anybody but cupcakes OOC. These games would become mere tune-ups and scrimmages. You could just get rid of the OOC games, but I would hate to see that. It's nice to play someone different now and then.
SOS matters, as it stands now.High schools in Georgia go strictly off of region games. (At least every one that I have seen) A team could go winless outside of their region but win every region game and they would be a number one seed in the playoffs. Some teams do schedule easy games out of conference. Some teams schedule very tough teams out of conference.
I don't understand why you think teams wouldn't schedule a hard OOC schedule? In the current system if Alabama scheduled Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, and Clemson as their four OOC games, it would reduce their chances of making the playoffs. If the conference championship guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, they could schedule those games and make even more money. If there weren't bowl games for teams that don't make the playoffs, then there wouldn't even be any advantage for lower level teams to schedule FCS schools.
As I said in my previous post, the same is true in high school football in Georgia. Some teams do that. Other teams play extremely tough schedules preparing themselves for deep runs in the playoffs.SOS matters, as it stands now.
If only conference winners get into the playoff, OOC schedules won't matter. Teams won't want to get worn out dragging some tough opponent up and down the field and have to leave their starters in and maybe get hurt when they could rest them for the games that matter. They'd rather play a team they would feel they had a good chance of pulling their starters in the second half and give them some rest - a scrimmage, a tune-up game. Or so it seems to me.
As I said in my previous post, the same is true in high school football in Georgia. Some teams do that. Other teams play extremely tough schedules preparing themselves for deep runs in the playoffs.
Why does that really matter? If a team feels as though resting is more important than playing, then let them. It most likely would not be a conference champion only playoff. The FCS playoffs have 24 teams. 10 automatic qualifiers and 14 at large. If a team scheduled 4 scrub teams, they likely wouldn't have any chance of getting an at large berth, so they won't do that.
If a team like GT were to schedule extremely soft to play only conference games and scrimmage games, revenue would suffer tremendously. GT could play four P5 teams every single year and make much more revenue. Could play in a neutral site game, a home P5 game, an away P5 game, and the rotating mutt game. Revenue would go up a lot. Alabama could probably arrange to play two neutral site games, one G5 home game, and one P5 home-away scheduled games every year.
Its hard for a person who nobody knows, market a product/service to those people who don't know him. One and dones' (draft or transferring) have helped kill the college game almost as much as the AAU circuit has killed HS basketball.Men's basketball has underperformed more than any other college sport.