NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:46 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
There is a strong relation between conference realignment, the BCS and a play-off. IMHO a 16 team, 4 round playoff is to long, and the difference in strength between the Big 12 and SBC is to great to make an 8 teams playoff fair to everyone.

This leads to the question: What changes are you willing to see to get to a fair 8 team playofff?

1. Teams dropping down from 1A. This is already happening. See the new standards or attendance threads. Q. How many teams would be an acceptable loss? 10,20, 30 or more?

2. Go to 8 conferences of 12 teams each. (Minor realignment.) Note requires 21 teams dropping out of 1A.

3. Since #2 would be unballanced, would you support conference realignment of strong teams to balance the strength? Even if YOUR favorite home team? If so, how often: once, every 5 or 10 yrs?

4. Would you support the NCAA or the conferences scheduling the ooc games to get balance? All games?

5. Would you support reducing the season to 10 games in order to have a 16 team, 4 round playoff? If so, what measure would you propose to reduce Title 9's financial bite?

6. What other measure would you support? List:_____.


Voting is by posting. Since discussion is encouraged, multiple post by the same person will only count once. Changes in your vote are allowed.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2003 5:12 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
ACCNole2, Catdaddy, Sbro

Where are you? I wanted to let you go first, so as not to bias the results. Anyway, here goes.

1. You only need 50-60 serious teams to be competative, but you need the losers to keep the sport on everyone's mind. If 1A got below 90 teams without 1AA getting seriously upgraded, I would be seriously concerned. If the BB schools set up some sort of 1B, that would be different. Even split.

2. Why not? The SEC has 12 teams already.

3. a. Grudgenly yes. Vandy belongs with the Tobacco road schools, but that would make matters worst. The ACC already has 3 great year end match-ups with the SEC. If you added Auburn and MS ST (which will be back) to the ACC it would make 5.
b. I would be unhappy. If the TN-AL is kept, I might be willing to live with it. TN's historical traditional opponants are all in the SEC West. Moving with them would be ok. The 3rd saturday in October is a tradition that MUST be kept! Moving it to the 2nd saturday is ok, but if the NCAA tried to take away TN-AL, I WOULD WRITE MY cONGRESSMAN!! No! NO!! ___NO!!!
c. Probably once. Maybe look at it every 10 years or so, but not any major shifts. I would prefer option 4.

4. It seems socialist, so I want a TAX CUT! (end of the Title 9 tax will do.) Note: ANY socialist proposal MUST be countered with a capitalist solution, preferably with a tax cut. However, since this is more of sheep in wolf's clothing than the other way around, I will go along with it if the conferences control it. (But I still want my Title IX tax cut!)

5. No. However, I don't support 12 games either.

6. My dream would be for the BB schools with fb teams to set up ther own conferences.(2 or more.) Their champs can play each other in some meaningless bowl, while the serious FB schools can have a playoff. You could get by with six serious conference champs and 2 wildcards. However, this is such a dream that it is really a fantasy.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2003 2:26 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
sorry fbfan, i was gone this weekend.

1. i think the ncaa will drop 10 teams at the most. any more than that and you will jeopardize the almighty 6th win for bcs bowl hopefuls. imho, the ncaa is doing this to allow teams to drop down to 1-aa or drop football entirely without raising the ire of fans, administrators and boosters. it's an unpopular move, dropping 1-a football. the ncaa, by instituting requirements (esp. attendance) is making it easier for schools to do that while still saying "we did everything we could."

2. pipedream. would be nice and neat, but college football has never been neat. i'd go for all conferences of 9 or 12 teams, meaning you expand the big east and mwc to 9, drop one from the wac, drop 2 from the mac, and add one to usa and big ten. sbc goes away. leaves you with 108 teams, a nice, manageable number.

3. realignment on the margins, and where necessary, as above. let conferences keep their identities to the extent they have one (i'm talking about you, wac).

4. conferences schedule ooc games. institute a requirement that every team play at least one road game and one game against a bcs opponent. at the very least. no big east teams qualify for a bowl by going 3-4 in the conference and beating ohio, western michigan, louisiana monroe and army.

5. 16 is too many. let every regular season game mean something. only a handful of teams deserve to play for the championship, and if you've already lost 3 games in an 11 or 12-game schedule, you're not one of them. modify the current system such that top 6 conference champions qualify, plus the two best at-large teams according to the formula. if a conference champ has 3 losses, it is replaced by the next best at-large.

6. see above.

7. things i dislike about college football:

a. unimaginative bowl matchups
b. rematches in the conference championship games
c. bowls named for something that does not fit in a bowl.
d. 9 bowl-eligible teams from the sec because schools can't help scheduling middle tennessee and louisiana lafayette every year.
e. 6-win teams from conference usa going bowling.
f. that every mid-major with a chance to go undefeated slips up somewhere along the way.
g. that no one will play a quality mid-major on the road.
h. perennial cellar dwellers like duke, vanderbilt, baylor and rutgers receiving a full share of bcs money.
i. comparisons with ncaa basketball, as if the system for one could work for the other.
j. 11 teams in conference usa and the big ten. please somebody do something about this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Mon Jan 27, 2003 6:30 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:28 am
Posts: 101
Location: SC
1. I fully expect the NCAA to back off at the last minute and the only teams dropping back being the ones who drop back on their own. The reason I see them backing off is from the threat of leagal action by several of the smaller teams who are very borderline at this time. I see less than 10 teams dropping back to 1-AA.

2. I don't see where 12 team conferences are the end all be all. I prefer a 9 team conference because you play every one else in conference every year. No arguement that "Southwest Central State Tech won the conference because they missed playing Eastern Mountain University and South North Central A&M" If you played every other conference member..there are no arguements.

3. The NCAA isn't going to mandate that conference realign...because they know that the minute they do so...the NCAA ceases to exist because the conferences will form another sanctioning body.

4. No way in hell. The NCAA can't get it's own rules right, and the last thin i want to see is the ACC handling Clemson's scheduling. Of course, if the ACC did handle it...we would be assured of seeing the top 3 teams in the nation on the road every year.

5. No. A 16 team playoff can be done with an 11 game schedule....as long as there aren't extra "classic" games at the first part of the season and conference championships. The AD's and University Admin. who say it can't be done are just toing the party line.
Title IX is going to get more than their fair share any way you cut it. For it to change would require an act of congress.....and those folks know that they need the women to get re-elected.

6. Every team in the nation going into the season with the same shot at the national title after laying in a 16 team, all conference champions (11) and 5 at large bids.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 8:34 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
Sbro,

Interesting post. You seem to agree with Catdaddy2402 about the number of team 1A will lose, and me on a 16 team playoff. Your point on BCS teams playing weaker 1B's (non BCS) is right on, but if they have to play BCS schools, how can a "mid-major" get a shot at a BCS school? This is a toughie! Perhaps it should be brainstormed on either this thread or the dream thread.

Catdaddy2402,

You point #4 was VERY funny! I loved it. However, note how this disagrees with Sbro. No team should get into the playoffs without beating some top 20 teams. How do you get the best non BCS teams a chance to play "the big boys," and who decides? I will post my "dream" solution on the dream thread, but I know it cannot happen. Maybe you are someone else reading this will have the answer. :) I hope so.

FBfan



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 11:55 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:28 am
Posts: 101
Location: SC
I understand where you are coming from in regards to teams having to play other teams in the Top 20...but in reality there is no way that you can assure that. What happens if a team pulls a Florida, Nebraska, or Tennessee flop like they did this year? If that was supposed to be the team from the Top 20 you were going to play then for all intents and purposes you lost your shot at the National Title without your team making a mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:21 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
Sorry for the late response,

1. I'm not sure how many teams we can afford to lose. There are a few schools like Youngstown St., Villanova, WKU, and maybe Georgia Southern that could upgrade, mitigating the loss of some the IA from attendance shortfall. Under the current system, the Big 10 is helping out many of the struggling Mac schools by scheduling neutral site games that count towards the school's attendance. If there is a shift to a playoff system, other demands on the Big 10 may pull some of this support, and a significant numbe rof Mac schools could freefall. My guess is we could stand to lose 10-15 schools as long as we have a few move up. If a playoff is set up, there should be some accomodations made to protect against the loss of more teams. This may be easier in some regions than others.

2. I like the idea of 8 12 team conferences, particularly if we're talking about the 6 BCS conferences and a beefed up C-USA and MWC/WAC. I don't think demoting teams would be necessary. They'd either drop off on their own because they can't survive outside of a conference, or they'd cling together in underpopulated (for purposes of football) basketball-driven conferences. That may be what happens with the ACC. Just don't give their champ an automatic bid in. If the pollsters and the computers think their best team qualifies for an at-large bid, so be it. If the outliers form a 12 team league (might happen with a realigned MAC), then allow them admission into the system on a performace-based standard like they do in basketball. If they don't perform to a certain level, they aren't allowed in (but an at-large bid is still available).

3. I don't think the conferences should realign for balance. If C-USA and the MWC/WAC beef up, that'd be enough for me. Their champs would get an automatic bid, but they should be seeded based on a power rating (a modified BCS formula). You'd have minimum performance requirements for C-USA and the MWC/WAC anyway. If they cut the mustard, then their champ deserves a spot in a 16 team field. Odds are that an MWC/WAC or C-USA champ, even during a great season, won't be rated higher than 10 in a modified BCS formula. The level of competition will determine how highly the conference champ is seeded.

If this question was meant purely for an 12 team conference, 8 team playoff field, then I'm against the whole thing. I don't beleive in automatic conference bids without at least a couple of at-large bids. I can see the current BCS conferences going to 12 with their champ receiving an automatic bid, but the last two bids should be at large, with C-USA etc. eligible for selection if they rate high enough. If it's obvious the two best teams in the country are in the conference and one is left out (i.e. Pitt 12-0, Miami 11-1 with a 1 point loss at Pitt), the playoff would suck IMO. I know some teams will always be left outm but you can't leave out the top two teams, not ever.

4. I think OOC games are the best route to go for balance. Some minimum requirements for performance against IA teams as well as current BCS teams. Conference challenges or alliances would be excellent.

5. I'd be all for reducing to ten games for a 16 team playoff. Not sure about how to help with title IX. Some of that will take care of itself, with struggling schools dropping to IAA and basketball and football schools possibly splitting to form new conferences. Relignment focusing on regional rivalries would help. So would the astronomical playoff revenue. Depends on what happens with the current reform proposals. See:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030128/ap_on_sp_co_ne/title_ix_reform_1
That's not meant to be partisan btw. Bush just happens to be the pres right now. I'm sure this will make him some enemies, though I suspect the folks who will be angered by the reforms already dislike him.

6. I'd propose formation of basketball/academically driven conferences. You could have a few consolation bowls for those finishing just out of the playoff, ideally hosted in regions where two conferences overlap (i.e. tire bowl). I think a 4 team "scholar-athlete" playoff would be interesting as well. You'd probably have Wake, Air Force, maybe BYU, and Stanford to choose from most years. If teams like Vandy, Baylor, and Rice move to easier conferences they'd probably be eligible as well. These games would have more appeal and the match-ups would be more carefully designed than the current minor bowls.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 3:53 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
FBfan,

If there's ever a major rift in the ACC, you may get your wish. If FSU (and I suppose Tech and possibly Clemson if a playoff and conference title game were at stake) ever left the ACC, I could see a BB and academics first conference forming. I say if their teams rate high enough in a BCS type formula, let them in as an at-large. Just don't guarantee them a bid. Some sort of academic bowl/ 4 team playoff might be attractive for them if they don't qualify at-large. Same is true for similar schools like Vandy and Baylor. I'd like to see all the schools in one league. Catdaddy and Turtlepower would, understandable, be horrified (or am I wrong?), but in time the conference would be more tightly knit, and if the Terps and Tigers qualify at-large, then they can stil participate in a playoff. If they feel they are losing too much remaining in the conference, I'm sure the BE or SEC would find a place for them.

As far as Title IX goes, I suspect some of Bush's proposed reforms will make you happy, though some folks on the other end for the spectrum wil be furious. I see both sides, and I understand that Title IX is supposed to help generate interest in women's sports that hasn't been there in the past, in part, because of lack of opportunty. But artificially boosting up zillions of sports where there is virtually zero interest at the expense of popular traditional sports like wrestling is totally ridiculous. Wrestling is already marginalized enough. I don't think Title IX should be scrapped, but this totally fictitious attitide that there is just as much interest, by both men and women, in women's sports is ridiculous. Just because a school has one more men's sport than women's doesn't mean that there needs to be an under"manned" women's underwater bowling team. As usual, when the decision is made to legislate fairness, plenty of other folks get the shaft. Apologies for the tirade.

sbro,

Agreed on every point. I have aslight preference for 12 member teams, but with the right performance requirements leaving some at 12 and some at 9 would work just as well, maybe better. But what do you do with the Pac 10?

catdaddy,

Point 3 is great. Hadn't thought of that.

I agree with you and sbro about 9 team conferences working, though I'd love to see title game in every conference. The 12 team conferences can probably level the playing field by playing lesser IA squads out of conference, while the best 9 member conference teams face a brutal OOC schedule, like Miami this past season (at least on paper) and FSU next season. That's the way it'll go in the future I think. The only negative is that the title games are at the end of the year. I think the penalty for losing late should be slightly reduced by computer, since human voters already hammer teams for losing late while allowing early losers to redeem themselves. That's about as even as you could get without every conference going to the same number of members. Anyway, with a 16 team playoff, the consequences of losing a title game aren't so dire. better dropping to the 8th seed than losing any shot at the BCS title game.

As far as point 4. goes, you guys should form a block with FSU and Ga Tech, or we should head out to greener pastures if the conference refuses to expand. I doubt you agree, but sooner or later we may reluctantly join forces.

FBFan (II),

I think with performance requirements for the mid-majors (if they go to 12 members and beef up) and OOC requirements for the Big 6, the mid majors could get the required games in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:17 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
FBFan,

How about this:

Assuming MWC raids WAC to form a better 12 team conference and C-USA beefs up to 12 (I'm guessing USF and Marshall will be their heavy hitters, and they could bring in SMU, Temple, or UCF if TCU manages to move up in the world), place the following requirements on these two tentative members of the new PRS (playoff rating system).

1. Must play at least three teams from former BCS conferences in order to qualify for rating within the PRS. (If they luck out and Tennessee or Notre are down, so be it. We don't knock BCS schools when their big name opponents have a down year, so fair is fair.)

2. Only the conference title game winner has an automatic bid.

3. Non-title winners may receive an at-large bid, if they rate highly enough within the PRS.

Place the following requirements on the former BCS conferences:

1. Increase the number of wins against IA opposition required for PRS eligibility (as an incentive to schedule at least one MWC/WAC or C-USA team out of conference for an easy qualifying game).

2. Allow playing an MWC/WAC and/or C-USA champ to be a significant factor in strength of schedule, including defeating the eventual champ. Even playing a division winner qualifying for the title game should provide a modest bonus.

3. Ranked MWC/WAC and/or C-USA teams should carry the same weight in a PRS formula as BCS teams receiving the same rank.

4. Penalize teams (in some manner) for scheduling IAA's. Perhaps make them count as partial wins. No way a team should get a freebie tune-up against a IAA team.

5. Provide a slight bonus for quality road wins (a 10-1 road warrior ought to get the nod over an 11-0 team playing all their ranked opponents at home, esecially when seeding for a playoff).

These reforms would serve as incentives for former BCS conference teams to schedule C-USA and/or MWC/WAC teams for easier IA wins (when a patsy is required), especially once some 10 or so wimpy IA schools drop to IAA, and the IAA's aren't such an attractive option. They will also serve as an incentive for the better former BCS schools to take on the better mid-major teams, since they may even receive a bonus for beating a conference champ, or more likely a division winner and ranked team, from what is probably an easier conference to win in, particularly on the road. A team like Miami might see a road game against Boise State as an easy opportunity cash in on a win vs. a conference champ without any danger of losing.

Btw, I'm not suggesting the Big 12 conference champ would be worth as much as the MWC/WAC. That woudl depend on end of the season ranking. But a win over a conference champ should have a small value of its own. Not so large as to be unfair, but it should definitely count.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 28, 2003 4:26 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
In case I get hammerred, I have no idea how these "requirements" would be imposed. I guess it would presuppose an 8 conference alliance forming and imposing those requirements on its members and any teams attempting to qualify for the playoff. I doubt the BCS conferences would be so hard on themselves, unless they felt it would keep one of the other BCS conferences fro having an unfair advantage (i.e. the SEC playing no one out of conference).

FBfan,

I don't think you'd lose AL vs. TN. I think most 11 member conferences, if they had sense, would have 9 conference games. 6 division games, 3 opposite division games. At least one, ane more likely two, of the opposite division games could be locked in. So Tennessee could lock in Bama, as long as both schools agreed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:21 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 3:28 am
Posts: 101
Location: SC
The one thing that most University Presidents mention when a playoff is brought up is the fact that it would make the season longer. If everyone goes to 12 team conferences, and is mandated to play X number of games against Conference Y then a playoff is never going to get off the ground.

With a 9 team conference you have 8 conference games and 3 OOC games with a 12 game schedule. The big thing is YOU PLAY EVERY TEAM IN YOUR CONFERENCE. When you have a 12 team, two division conference you may as well have two 6 team conferences. Take the SEC for example. South Carolina has been a member since 1992...yet they will play Ole Miss for the first time ever this year in football. In the same conference for 11 years an never played a down of football against the other team. Is it just me or is there something wrong with that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:45 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
catdaddy,

Regarding 12 team conferences, I don't really have a problem with USC not playing Ole Miss. If both teams win their division, they'll square off in a playoff. If there's tons of demand for the game, the SEC will probably arrange things down the road so that they play more often (unless something bizarre happens, UT will always play Bama). If there's not much demand for or interest in the game, and there's not much at stake in the polls, I don't care much if it doesn't happen. Way before the SEC expanded (admittedly I'm not sure what the membership was then) Alabama and UGA conveniently almost never played each other. THAT was a travesty.

As far as 9 team conferences go . . . tough question. It gets especially tough if we're talking about reducing the regular season to 10 games. You're right, it's a big problem for them and a major stumbling block for a playoff, unless we're gonna allow at least 12 games in the regular season. I think 12 team conferences would probably require each team to play all six division opponents and three opposite division opponents, allowing a couple of fixed games (for rivalries) and one floater to be scheduled. So you'd keep games like UT/Bama (unless UT felt their schedule was just too tough that way), and all the 12 member conference teams would play 9 games in conference. Not much difference from playing a schedule in a 9 member conference. You don't play everyone, but you're schedule may be tougher.

If you allow 12 and 9 member conferences, then something has to balance out the 12 member title games. If 9 member conference champs wouldn't play each other (you could have the BE vs. ACC champ as was proposed a while back, and there's the other suggestion that the BE, ACC and PAC 10 champs play the non-BCS champs), would they even things out by requiring 9 member conference teams to play an extra OOC game against a BCS opponent? That'd probably lets them off easy. I realize no one told the SEC and Big 12 to have a title game, but at least (admittedly for money) they put a serious challenge in the path of any conference champ making a national title run. Seems like the fairest thing to me is for every conference to have a title game, and that way lies money.

Maybe allowing conferences to have a title game with 10 members is the way to go. It'll annoy the 12 member conferences, but that may be the fairest thing across the board. I doubt UT would mind a larger cut from the SEC at the expense of Vandy. It'd ease the tension in the ACC, since only one new member would have to be brought in. If USC or Vandy aren't happy in the SEC, they could move to the ACC making realignment easier on the SEC (only needing to boot out one memebr). At team like Vandy or Miss State could be booted into C-USA or the Sunbelt for football. The PAC 10 in particular would be relieved, since it faced the worst deal if it expanded to 12. The MWC and WAC wouldn't necessarily have to go to war with each other, and C-USA, the MAC, and the Sunbelt and some of the independents might reshuffle so that all three survive and a fourth conference could host the refugee teams (there'd probably be some performance-based system to determine if they could participate in a playoff, like in basketball). That would at least slow down the free fall of certain teams into IAA. The primary beneficiaries of this system would be BE fans, since PSU would probably head in to the BE, and ND, not wanting to be left out, would join as well. Split the conference in half and you have ND or PSU vs. Miami in a conference title game nearly every year. That'd be a massive payday every year, especially with a whopper of a tv contract for a conference holding most fo the major eastern markets with only 10 members. If teams like Baylor and Rutgers continue to drag, the Big "12" and BE could consider pulling in teams like TCU or upgrading teams like Villanova.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2003 11:53 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
Hey guys, do you think it would increase the odds of moving to a playoff system if there were a football equivalent to the NIT, or maybe several smaller two week mini-playoffs, taking the place of the minor bowls?I realize the lengthy schedule is one concern at many universities, but football coaches and AD's are a big part of moving to a playoff system. I think many of them are afraid of losing any opportunity to evaluate talent, recruit, and earn money in minor post-season bowls. I don't know if an NCAA football NIT of sorts would be the way to go, but it's intriguing. I don't think a second playoff would be a dud in college football like it is in basketball. Here's why:

1) With the actual NCAA football playoff field only including 16 teams, there'd be some very solid squads left at home. Household names with substantial fan-support like Tennessee, Wisconsin, Ole Miss, Clemson, and Virginia Tech would be available.

2) Quality mid-majors with excellent records like Colorado St., Boise St., Fresno, Marshall, and Toledo (and in many years appealing and large mid-major draws like BYU) would also be available.

3) True scholar-athlete teams, like Wake Forest, Air Force (and during most seasons, Stanford) would also be left at home, depsite overachieving.

4) Rather than playing in a one-shot lackluster match-up, unmotivated teams following dissappointing seasons like Oregon, Tennessee, and Clemson would have a chance build momentum and expectations for next season by winninga tournament. Admittedly they wouldn't be playing for the title, but showing well in this would actually impress fans more than beating a no-name in the Seattle Bowl.

5) The mid-majors and the academic schools would have a much more attainable goal to shoot for every year in which they could showcase their programs against ranked teams and big time programs from the big 6 conferences.

6) Though it would run a very distant second to the real playoff, the "NIT" is still football being played on television, and it would either give the mid-majors or academic schools a chance to go farther than they ever have, or it would give major programs (Tennessee) a chance to redeem themselves and build excitement for the next season. It would be much more compelling than most of the minor bowl games under the old system.

7) If necessary, some of the games could be hosted by higher seeded teams, at least in the opening rounds. That'd be an extra pay day for participating schools.

Here's an example of the different types of teams who would have gained more from an "NIT" last year than the minor bowls (there are 18 below, not sure which 16 would have been selected):

Solid Performing Mid-Majors: Bosie St., Colorado St., TCU, USF, Marshall
Scholar Athlete Programs: Wake Forest, Air Force
Quality Programs with Major Fan Support: Va Tech, Clemson, West Va, Wisconsin
Struggling Super-Powers: Florida, Penn State, Tennessee
Programs on the Rise: Pitt, BC, Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Minnesota

As a football fan, I would be glued to my set for a playoff with that field of teams. The only potential negative would be if the NIT were scheduled too close to the actual playoff games. Anyway, think of what something like a football NIT would mean for teams like Air Force, Wake, Tennessee, Pitt, Ok St., Boise St., Va Tech, Clemson, or especially USF.

I know the hoops NIT is lame, but am I wrong in thinking the it'd be an improvement over the minor bowls, at least as a product that college fans would enjoy? You'd still only have 32 teams playing 1 extra game, 16 playing 2 extra games, 8 playing 3 extra, and 4 playing 4 extra. I don't buy the bs about schools not being able to accomodate the format. The kids have an extra burden to bear and they're making a ton of money for the school and the conference, so why can't they be accomodated? Maybe I'm naiive, but I know plenty of people who've had professors bend over backwards for them, giving them incompletes for a whole semester to allow them to avoid a failing grade the previous semester. If that's fairly common, then football players can get a few extra weeks cushion when it comes to exams. If the eggheads have too big of a problem with that, then they can form their own conference. Sure, Football players get plenty of undeserved breaks and it grates on serious students, but I know plenty of TA's who have high IQ's and terrifica grades, but zero teaching or social skills. TA's are one of the worst things about large universities. These guys can absolutely wreck a young student. If the schools can accomodate some of these bozos, who are doing them a service by providing cheap/free teaching services, then they can accomodate football players, who help boost the enrollement and exposure of the school, and who fill the coffers of the athletic department.

Btw, I realize that's not true of all TA's, but it's a crapshoot, and that's not fair to students.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2003 11:56 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
Catdaddy,

The SEC had a set up where each team played the other 5 teams in its division, and 2 "traditional" opponants every year with 1 rotating game among the other four teams. Due to problems like SC-Ol' Miss, they are going to only have 1 traditional opp and 2 rotating games. BTW TN-AL is still on. :)

BTW, I doubt that allowing 10 team conferences a playoff game would cause the SEC to kick out Vandy. I would NOT mind reducing their cut though!

ACCNole2,

Great post. I don'nt know where to start. First of all, I would like to see ALL grade and high schoolers get PE like they did when I was in school. It is good for them. I just don't think it is fair for one group to steal from another for any reason, and Title IX as applied does that. IF you take revenue producing sports "off the table" and split the rest evenly, that is good. If wrestling gets hurt, that's ok. They need to market their product better. Just don't take it from them because FB needs 85 scholarships. I'll get off my soapbox-- sorry. :-[

I will say more when I can find some time.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: New poll/survey
PostPosted: Wed Jan 29, 2003 12:19 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:56 pm
Posts: 290
FBfan,

True, wrestling is sometimes it's own worst enemy. I was a bit knee-jerk there. If wrestling was yanked at Tennessee or UConn they certainly couldn't point to women's hoops as the culprit. The women's basketball teams are probably halping to pay men's soccer at those schools. I don't think revenue production shoul dbe the end-all be-all, but it should be one of the primary factors. If that hurts wrestling, so be it.

Where I get ticked is where wrestling programs, which at least have a kernel of support from hard-core fans at a large number of schools (admittedly there are some places where absolutely no one cares, but usually there's a small but lyal crowd) are pushed aside to make room for women's broom hockey. I realize that's a totally bogus example and I ought cite some real sports. But I'm positive that there are women's sports out there where they can barely fill out a team, in a sprt that no one will ever go to see. But my annoyance in this area touches on the agenda pushed on ESPN (at least for a couple of years) and on NBC during the Olympics, that we all are very interested in women's sports. I think they are great, just don't TELL me that I'd rather watch tape delayed women's middleweight sculling (this is a real example) rather than medal-round boxing. But again, boxing is it's own worst enemy, so this is not a cut-and-dry issue. Plenty of blame to go around.

I'm totally with you on PE, but only if we actually start trying to reach kids where they are (same goes for academics btw). I got in great shape later in life, but I was a butterball as a kid with no athletic skills. Trotting me out to the field to grade me on the high jump, when I have never performed or been taught to perform one in my life, is just ridiculous. We probably ought to take some cues from Japan and Russia, where a greater varierty of sports are offered, along with quality instruction at an early age, and kids are steered towards their strengths. I'm not talking about railroading them on their path in life like they did (and I guess may still do) in the old Soviet Bloc countries. I like the freedom of choice in America, but instruction in phys ed is sorely lacking, and it seems like virtually zero thought (maybe this is changing) goes into what or how kids are taught. And no one seems to be looking for or encouraging individual children's physical attributes, unless they are so obvious that football and/or basketball programs basically compete for them.

I hated PE when I was a kid, but I loved football. There's got to be a way to reach kids like that. It seems like instruction is only there for kids who've either already been preapred for a sport by their parents, or for kids who have thrown all their chips into the athletic-hat. There must be exceptions to this, and I hope things are improving. With the current appraoch, I think we're missing out on many diamonds in the rough.

FBfan, if you want to talk about this some more on a different thread I'm all for it. Apologies to everyone else for being way off topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group