Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(College Sports Network)   Despite being horrible, the ACC has more bowl-eligible teams than any other conference. Thank you Florida   (collegesports.net ) divider line
    More: Interesting, ACC Championship, academic conference, Aaron Murray, screen pass, Demon Deacons, Commodores, David Cutcliffe, bowl-eligible  
•       •       •

775 clicks; posted to Sports » on 02 Dec 2013 at 9:10 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-02 08:38:11 AM  
May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.
 
2013-12-02 09:19:27 AM  

FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.


Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.
 
2013-12-02 09:37:34 AM  

FriarReb98: being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.


Other than the National Championship Game, no bowl game ever meant a goddamned thing.

They're just meaningless exhibition games designed to part fans & sponsors from their money.
 
2013-12-02 09:44:29 AM  
And the MAC has as many as the Big 10, so what?
 
2013-12-02 09:45:32 AM  

JimmyFartpants: FriarReb98: being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Other than the National Championship Game, no bowl game ever meant a goddamned thing.

They're just meaningless exhibition games designed to part fans & sponsors from their money.


Maybe, but going to a Sugar Bowl is still pretty damned fun.
 
2013-12-02 09:46:29 AM  

FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.


I think 1/2 of the FBS teams play in a bowl games. . . 35 damn bowl games.
 
2013-12-02 10:11:54 AM  

JimmyFartpants: FriarReb98: being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Other than the National Championship Game, no bowl game ever meant a goddamned thing.

They're just meaningless exhibition games designed to part fans & sponsors from their money.


Yeah, but they didn't used to be that way. I mean, look at the "Granddaddy Of Them All". It was... wait, no, it was just a way to pay for the Tournament of Roses parade, the Stanford team that got invited had a record of 3-1-2, and once they were down 49-0 to Michigan in the 3rd quarter, they quit. For the next 13 years, Pasadena had shiat like chariot races and ostrich races, rather than a football game, to help pay for the parade.

Gotta admit, ostrich races could be pretty sweet to watch, especially if you had monkeys dressed up in silks as jockeys. I'd almost rather watch that than a football game.
 
2013-12-02 10:22:32 AM  

steamingpile: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.


They aren't going to get plowed in the title game and that's all that matters anyway.
 
2013-12-02 10:22:45 AM  
I mean, Duke playing in the Orange Bowl will be pretty awesome.
 
2013-12-02 10:30:38 AM  

Broktun: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

I think 1/2 of the FBS teams play in a bowl games. . . 35 damn bowl games.


but god forbid you mention a playoff system, that is just too many games to be played after the season ends...I mean, how can you schedule so many games? (and keep rosters academically eligible for fall AND spring semester)
 
2013-12-02 10:43:55 AM  

Go Fast Turn Left: I mean, Duke playing in the Orange Bowl will be pretty awesome.


It would be, but Duke probably only goes to the Orange if they win Saturday, which I think it's fair to say is not the likely outcome (given that they're 30-point underdogs).  In all likelihood, they'd go to the Peach to face (I think?) the loser of Auburn-Mizzou.

And given the order of selection this year, it looks like the Orange will grab Bama.  Duke's had an admirable little season, and that's going to be a very angry Bama team if we come to that point.  No need to send the Fighting Cutcliffes into that buzzsaw.  Send Clemson so that we can all at least get some comedy out of it.
 
2013-12-02 10:45:26 AM  

Broktun: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

I think 1/2 of the FBS teams play in a bowl games. . . 35 damn bowl games.


Yup.  Seventy teams out of an average of 71 or 72 eligible teams play.  Currently there are 68 with winning records, 12 with .500 records, and three teams that could potentially end with .500 records (Rutgers, SMU and USA). Only Rutgers has a legit chance out of those three, btw - SMU plays UCF and USA plays the 8-3 Cajuns, and Rutgers gets 2-9 USF.  I don't care what qualifiers you use, there's at least 2 .500 teams (but probably more, due to conference tie-ins) that will be bowling.  That's just retarded.

But God forbid we don't have a second bowl game in five different cities and 3 in the DFW Metroplex!!
 
2013-12-02 10:46:19 AM  

Hyjamon: Broktun: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

I think 1/2 of the FBS teams play in a bowl games. . . 35 damn bowl games.

but god forbid you mention a playoff system, that is just too many games to be played after the season ends...I mean, how can you schedule so many games? (and keep rosters academically eligible for fall AND spring semester)


Exactly! It's not like every other level of football besides division I-A manages to schedule a postseason playoff or anything...

And it's over 50% of teams that make the postseason--70/123 teams get to play. Frankly, I could stomach the bowl system a little easier if bowl organizations would be banned and conferences would contract directly with each other to stage the postseason. Why should a middle man get a cut for staging an exhibition game when schools competently schedule several non-conference games every year? Makes no damn sense to enrich bowl organizers while sticking the participating schools with the costs. Most schools don't make money off bowls because of this arrangement. It's probably the worst business arrangement in sports.
 
2013-12-02 10:48:29 AM  

js34603: steamingpile: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.

They aren't going to get plowed in the title game and that's all that matters anyway.


Not really since all that would mean is that people would argue for a year about how FSU played a shiat schedule and didnt deserve it.

Oh how I would love chaos and somehow get bama back up there just to piss everyone off, but I just dont want auburn to have another lucky shot at anything. Everyone hates auburn, its cathartic.
 
2013-12-02 10:53:11 AM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: It would be, but Duke probably only goes to the Orange if they win Saturday, which I think it's fair to say is not the likely outcome (given that they're 30-point underdogs).  In all likelihood, they'd go to the Peach to face (I think?) the loser of Auburn-Mizzou.


Duke's winning Saturday.
 
2013-12-02 10:57:06 AM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: Send Clemson so that we can all at least get some comedy out of it.


Oh, Jesus. WVU hung 70 on them last year, and Spurrier's defense stymied them on Saturday. A pissed-off Saban would do Very Bad Things to Clemson.

I'm down with this suggestion.
 
2013-12-02 10:57:22 AM  

JimmyFartpants: FriarReb98: being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Other than the National Championship Game, no bowl game ever meant a goddamned thing.

They're just meaningless exhibition games designed to part fans & sponsors from their money.


Well, it also gives a team one more game against an out of conference team they might not play very often.
 
2013-12-02 11:22:29 AM  

Gonz: RickyWilliams'sBong: Send Clemson so that we can all at least get some comedy out of it.

Oh, Jesus. WVU hung 70 on them last year, and Spurrier's defense stymied them on Saturday. A pissed-off Saban would do Very Bad Things to Clemson.

I'm down with this suggestion.


Two years ago.  Last year they actually managed to win one, inexplicably.  But, yes, exactly.

A pissed-off Saban would do Very Bad Things to either one.  Doing it to Duke just seems cruel.  Doing it to Clemson is hilarious.
 
2013-12-02 11:22:44 AM  
Surprised "We're bringing home a national championship" isn't on the list.  Thanks Auburn.
 
2013-12-02 11:30:36 AM  
I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.
 
2013-12-02 11:35:49 AM  

FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.


On the other hand, not being bowl-eligible DOES mean something.

Hyjamon: but god forbid you mention a playoff system, that is just too many games to be played after the season ends...I mean, how can you schedule so many games? (and keep rosters academically eligible for fall AND spring semester)


"Hi, I don't understand the difference between one game for each team and potentially 4 or 5 in successive weeks!"

/FCS playoffs are a sham, too

JimmyFartpants: Other than the National Championship Game, no bowl game ever meant a goddamned thing.

They're just meaningless exhibition games designed to part fans & sponsors from their money.


The same is true of all sports, if you want to break it down to that.
 
2013-12-02 11:47:45 AM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.


Why don't we just make it 128 teams and throw out the regular season altogether?
 
2013-12-02 11:52:33 AM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Why don't we just make it 128 teams and throw out the regular season altogether?


16 teams with every conference taking part.
 
2013-12-02 12:05:15 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.


Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.
 
2013-12-02 12:15:04 PM  

mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.




If Aurbon loses to Mizzou combined with FSU and tOSU losing it's plausabile. It's happened before.
 
2013-12-02 12:18:39 PM  
That must be hard to do with all 8 of those conference games.  That's a tough gamut to run late in the season especially with matchups like Idaho sprinkled in the middle of November.
 
2013-12-02 12:19:12 PM  

mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.


I was a little curious about this as well.
 
2013-12-02 12:25:45 PM  

Lucksbane: mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.

I was a little curious about this as well.


Bama fans are clinging onto strength of schedule.

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/strength-of-sch ed ule-by-team
 
2013-12-02 12:29:06 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.

If Aurbon loses to Mizzou combined with FSU and tOSU losing it's plausabile. It's happened before.


I'll painfully aware Mizzou gets no respect. I've seen pundits that put Mizzou well out of the BCS in mid-tier bowls simply for lack of history.
 
2013-12-02 12:34:01 PM  

mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.

If Aurbon loses to Mizzou combined with FSU and tOSU losing it's plausabile. It's happened before.

I'll painfully aware Mizzou gets no respect. I've seen pundits that put Mizzou well out of the BCS in mid-tier bowls simply for lack of history.




I wasn't saying Mizzou wouldn't get in the title game. I was saying that Bama would jump the rest of the one loss teams.

/Mizzou fan
 
2013-12-02 12:38:13 PM  
Having lots of bowl games throws something the way of good teams that will never break through the good old boy BCS rigging setup designed to get the SEC and some other traditional powerhouse in the national championship game each year.
 
2013-12-02 12:38:43 PM  

RickyWilliams'sBong: Why don't we just make it 128 teams and throw out the regular season altogether?


Why don't we just make it 128 teams and throw out the regular season.
 
2013-12-02 12:50:33 PM  

Lucksbane: mjohnson71: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

Please explain to me how in your scenario Mizzou wins the SEC yet Bama gets to play for the national title.

I was a little curious about this as well.


It would be Mizzou-Bama.

Right now, Auburn, Ohio St and FSU are ahead of Bama.  If Auburn, Ohio St and FSU all lose, they will fall below Bama.  Mizzou would probably jump Bama, but it won't matter since Bama would still be top 2.
 
2013-12-02 12:59:49 PM  

Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.


I'd be fine with 8-team playoff. 6 conference champs from the current AQ conferences and two at large.
Some years the you'll have biatching about how one conference "deserved" to send 5 teams and the other conference(s) don't "deserve" any.
If the "deserving" conferences have to prove it every year against teams that won their conference, so be it. UCF would for example go to the playoffs this season, so what. Just easier for your "elite" conferences to prove their dominance.

Out of 124 D-I or whatever you call them teams, currently 76 would have a path to the playoff on the field, without any beauty contest/ESPN dick sucking required.
It would be 84 teams if all 6 conferences got to 14 members, or 96 if they all had 16. That would mean only 28 teams would have to deal with the ranking bullshiat.

Other two spots would be open to smaller schools and also-rans from the big conferences, which would retain some of the beauty contest/polling ranking bullshiat, but at there would be far less emphasis on that. I think that would be adequate and would only require two additional two weeks, and 6 games.

Assuming ranking stay as they are (which obviously won't happen) and all favorites win their conference championship (also might not happen), right now that would mean 1st round, Dec 14th, tOSU vs. Stanford, Auburn vs. OK St, FSU vs. UCF and 'Bama vs. Mizzou.
Second round/semifinals would be Dec 21st. Then you've got plenty of room to spare for the usual bowl game$$$, national championship game (which would actually be a championship game) would take place on the usual date.

A friend of mine had talked to me at some length about undefeated teams (like Boise State for years) qualifying, this year that would mean NIU would go... I don't have a strong opinion on that either way.
 
2013-12-02 01:30:14 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Mid_mo_mad_man: I'm personally rooting for Michigan State, Duke, and Mizzou Saturaday. Just to see Bama jump into the title game. We really need a sixteen team playoff.

I'd be fine with 8-team playoff. 6 conference champs from the current AQ conferences and two at large.
Some years the you'll have biatching about how one conference "deserved" to send 5 teams and the other conference(s) don't "deserve" any.
If the "deserving" conferences have to prove it every year against teams that won their conference, so be it. UCF would for example go to the playoffs this season, so what. Just easier for your "elite" conferences to prove their dominance.

Out of 124 D-I or whatever you call them teams, currently 76 would have a path to the playoff on the field, without any beauty contest/ESPN dick sucking required.
It would be 84 teams if all 6 conferences got to 14 members, or 96 if they all had 16. That would mean only 28 teams would have to deal with the ranking bullshiat.

Other two spots would be open to smaller schools and also-rans from the big conferences, which would retain some of the beauty contest/polling ranking bullshiat, but at there would be far less emphasis on that. I think that would be adequate and would only require two additional two weeks, and 6 games.

Assuming ranking stay as they are (which obviously won't happen) and all favorites win their conference championship (also might not happen), right now that would mean 1st round, Dec 14th, tOSU vs. Stanford, Auburn vs. OK St, FSU vs. UCF and 'Bama vs. Mizzou.
Second round/semifinals would be Dec 21st. Then you've got plenty of room to spare for the usual bowl game$$$, national championship game (which would actually be a championship game) would take place on the usual date.

A friend of mine had talked to me at some length about undefeated teams (like Boise State for years) qualifying, this year that would mean NIU would go... I don't have a strong opinion on that either way.


Yours is pretty good, but I've always advocated for:

*  16 teams
*  10 Conference Champions + 6 at-large decided by committee/BCS/whatever
*  No special treatment for Notre Dame.  They can fight for an at-large or join a conference.
*  First three rounds at the home of the higher seed, just so we theoretically have the very concept of SEC teams travelling north of the Mason-Dixon line.  Yes, I know, those precious snowflakes (no pun intended) might shrivel.  Deal with it.
 
2013-12-02 01:40:27 PM  
In other ACC news, WRAL just announced a grand jury in Orange County has indicted Julius Nyang'Oro, presumably for creating bullshiat fake classes for athletes. I'm glad to see he's actually going to have to answer for that nonsense.
 
2013-12-02 01:59:02 PM  

steamingpile: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.


Who are these ACC people you are referring to?  Can you name one?  Any one poster on Fark who actually said that?  Or anything close to that?
 
2013-12-02 02:27:51 PM  

buckeyebrain: Yours is pretty good, but I've always advocated for:

* 16 teams
* 10 Conference Champions + 6 at-large decided by committee/BCS/whatever
* No special treatment for Notre Dame. They can fight for an at-large or join a conference.
* First three rounds at the home of the higher seed, just so we theoretically have the very concept of SEC teams travelling north of the Mason-Dixon line. Yes, I know, those precious snowflakes (no pun intended) might shrivel. Deal with it.


I do like that a bit better, in that it would make the rankings only pertinent to teams that failed to win their conference.
It may be a tougher sell to the powers that be. Bowl games are a reality, and personally I don't have any problem with them. Hell, the folks are getting ready to go to Florida to watch their favorite team play in some bowl game or another.
Even in my suggested 8-team scenario, you have the playoff semifinals conflicting with some bowl games as early as the 21st.
Then again, 8-team playoff adds 6 games, 16 teams adds 14 games, so there's still plenty of revenue to be had...
...just not necessarily for some "bowl committee" (which is a win for everyone except them).

But still, I'd be fine with either option (8 or 16 teams). It's just that 8 teams w/AQ conf champs seems like a good first step.

The upcoming 4-team playoff is an improvement over BCS, but still relies far too heavily on how good people/computers say teams are.
 
2013-12-02 02:31:03 PM  
4 team playoff is fine.  Unless you are an NIU fan.
 
2013-12-02 02:59:40 PM  

FLMountainMan: steamingpile: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.

Who are these ACC people you are referring to?  Can you name one?  Any one poster on Fark who actually said that?  Or anything close to that?


Go read the threads, the bong guy was one defending all that but Im convinced hes an alt of someone people have ignored and there were others piping up every time the weak ACC comes up and this headline is a direct swipe at that, hence the sarcastic remark.

Try and keep up.

erratick: 4 team playoff is fine.  Unless you are an NIU fan.


NIU doesnt deserve to be included in a 16 team playoff.
 
2013-12-02 03:06:09 PM  

steamingpile: erratick: 4 team playoff is fine. Unless you are an NIU fan.

NIU doesnt deserve to be included in a 16 team playoff.


Don't care if NIU is in it or not, but the less a system takes into account who you think deserves to be in it, the better the system is.
 
2013-12-02 03:17:34 PM  

steamingpile: FLMountainMan: steamingpile: FriarReb98: May I be first to say, in this era of there being enough games for seventy teams to make it to a bowl, that being bowl eligible no longer means a goddamned thing.

Nu uh according to ACC people here it means the ACC is now more powerful than the SEC, big12, big10 combined!

Now watch them go get plowed in those bowl games.

Who are these ACC people you are referring to?  Can you name one?  Any one poster on Fark who actually said that?  Or anything close to that?

Go read the threads, the bong guy was one defending all that but Im convinced hes an alt of someone people have ignored and there were others piping up every time the weak ACC comes up and this headline is a direct swipe at that, hence the sarcastic remark.

Try and keep up.


Went back and checked.  Didn't see a single one.  And I have Ricky Williams' Bong favorited, so his comments are easy to find.

You're inventing strawmen to fit some persecution complex and thereby fitting neatly into the stereotype that people have about SEC fans and Southerners as a whole.  As a Southerner and huge Vols fan, please stop.  Thanks.
 
2013-12-02 03:21:35 PM  

IAmRight: On the other hand, not being bowl-eligible DOES mean something.


This is true.  You have to truly suck to not be bowl eligible nowadays.
 
2013-12-02 03:24:22 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Don't care if NIU is in it or not, but the less a system takes into account who you think deserves to be in it, the better the system is.


When you SOS drops into the 100s you dont deserve to go since you basically played against shiat teams.

FLMountainMan: Went back and checked. Didn't see a single one. And I have Ricky Williams' Bong favorited, so his comments are easy to find.

You're inventing strawmen to fit some persecution complex and thereby fitting neatly into the stereotype that people have about SEC fans and Southerners as a whole. As a Southerner and huge Vols fan, please stop. Thanks.


Im not going back and looking but it was the previous couple weeks when people grew tired of it so I decided to be nice the past weekend and ignore it but I did comment about the ACC school farking up and not being shiatty franklin and vandy. He now tops my hate list in college just cause hes such a douche.
 
2013-12-02 03:48:40 PM  

steamingpile: When you SOS drops into the 100s you dont deserve to go since you basically played against shiat teams.


Like I said, I don't care if NIU plays for anything now or in the future. But it would be fantastic to have all the arguments about "SOS" and all that other shiat rendered (mostly) irrelevant.
 
2013-12-02 04:41:40 PM  

steamingpile: Go read the threads, the bong guy was one defending all that but Im convinced hes an alt of someone people have ignored and there were others piping up every time the weak ACC comes up and this headline is a direct swipe at that, hence the sarcastic remark.

Try and keep up.


Could you point the comments out for me, Cletus?
 
2013-12-02 04:45:27 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Then again, 8-team playoff adds 6 games, 16 teams adds 14 games, so there's still plenty of revenue to be had...


It only really adds games for eight schools. The first-round losers aren't playing anything extra.
 
2013-12-02 04:46:22 PM  

FLMountainMan: Went back and checked.  Didn't see a single one.  And I have Ricky Williams' Bong favorited, so his comments are easy to find.

You're inventing strawmen to fit some persecution complex and thereby fitting neatly into the stereotype that people have about SEC fans and Southerners as a whole.  As a Southerner and huge Vols fan, please stop.  Thanks.


Don't bother him with facts.  He's got emails to write to Finebaum.
 
2013-12-02 05:32:11 PM  

Gosling: It only really adds games for eight schools. The first-round losers aren't playing anything extra.


True that first round games are basically cannibalizing a school's bowl games, as losers wouldn't go on to play in another bowl game

It's possible to keep existing bowl games, and add the playoff games for the highest sponsor/bidder/corrupt municipality to make extra dough. Or, give the existing corrupt municipality "bowl" games the playoff games, and create new bowl games to take their previous time slot in the tv lineup.

I was thinking playoff games at a neutral site, basically set up like bowl games.
I wasn't thinking about the issues tourists booking their travel packages, time off, tickets etc.
For that reason 16-team playoff seems unworkable, which was my feeling originally.
(Unless the champ. game date is pushed back which probably is not going to happen)

I look at how they set up the 4-team playoffs... the games are about 10 days apart.

I gave an example for the 2013 8-team playoff, but I don't think the dates work.
First round games should probably be the 21st, that should give the tourists enough time to book.
Semifinals moved to new year's eve or day. That's about the same amount of time between 1st and 2nd rounds as next year's playoffs.
I'm guessing if your team went to the semis, the teams' fans would figure out a way to make it happen.
Time between semis and championship game would be the same as currently scheduled.

But yeah... if you don't create new bowls for the playoff games, it's really only adding 2 more games vs. BCS.
From the schools perspective, 4 teams play in 2 bowls, 2 teams play in 3, everyone else still gets 1.

But my point about revenue, or at least my intuition is, TV ratings for the 4 first round games would wallop the ratings for the Idaho Potato Bowl et. al.
 
2013-12-02 05:36:54 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: I wasn't thinking about the issues tourists booking their travel packages, time off, tickets etc.
For that reason 16-team playoff seems unworkable, which was my feeling originally.


The NFL makes it work when they have the same number of rounds. I don't see why it wouldn't here.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report