NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:52 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:14 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:44 am
Posts: 22
Location: Chicago
A 16-team tourney would include 2- and 3-loss teams. If a team plays 11 games, I'd call those "multi-loss teams."

As you add more and more teams to a playoff/tourney, you dilute the importance of the regular season, thereby decreasing the interest in the regular season.

Obviously. :P


Quote:


In those systems, teams can get into the playoffs with multi digit losses.

Obviously not true of a football playoff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 1:37 pm 
It couldn't go over 16 teams since that would take too long.

I didn't say multi loss teams I said multi digit loss teams.

I doubt that a team 3 losses would get in. They'd find a more deserving 1 loss team from a lower conference.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:32 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:44 am
Posts: 22
Location: Chicago
Two 3-loss teams probably would've been in last year.


Quote:
It couldn't go over 16 teams since that would take too long.

I didn't say multi loss teams I said multi digit loss teams.

I doubt that a team 3 losses would get in. They'd find a more deserving 1 loss team from a lower conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:22 pm 

Quote:
Two 3-loss teams probably would've been in last year.



I'd rather see a non BCS 1 loss team get it than a BCS 3 loss team.

I think most would agree.

Get a Southern Miss., Boise State, Utah, etc. team in there and lets see what they can do against the big boys.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:00 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
ChicagoGOBlue's dream thread post got me thinking about how many teams you think should be in D1A, and what should the critieria be to be D1A.

GunnerFan posted the 2002 attendance figures on the Attendance thread. (Thanks again GunnerFan! :) ) Here is a breakdown.

Over 30K 70 Sub-total
25-30k 12 82
20-25k 15 97
15-20k 9 106
under 15k 11 117
Total 117 117

Note most of the top 70 are in currently in the BCS. My views have been posted several times, but I will post again if anyone wishes.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:38 pm 
FOTBALL CZAR? AD KEVIN WHITE OF NOTRE DAME, AT LEAST THE MESSENGER.
ANY OTHER BIG TIMER BELONGS TO A CONFERENCE.
ND CONSIDERS THEMSELVES TOO ELITE TO BE FORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH PEERS IN A CONFERENCE.
THEY GET ENABLED BY NBC CONTRACT, BE, REGULAR OPPONENTS.
BCS (OTHER CONFERENCES) GIVES THEM SPECIAL ACCESS--LONE CRITERIA.
BE GIVES ND BB A PRETIGE HOME.
BIG 10 KEEPS SPOT OPEN FOR THEM.
BROKER A HUGE BB BE, AND NOT SERVE BE FB INTERESTS.



Top
  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:10 pm 

Quote:
ChicagoGOBlue's dream thread post got me thinking about how many teams you think should be in D1A, and what should the critieria be to be D1A.

GunnerFan posted the 2002 attendance figures on the Attendance thread. (Thanks again GunnerFan! :) ) Here is a breakdown.

Over 30K 70 Sub-total
25-30k 12 82
20-25k 15 97
15-20k 9 106
under 15k 11 117
Total 117 117

Note most of the top 70 are in currently in the BCS. My views have been posted several times, but I will post again if anyone wishes.

FBfan


All DI schools that have football should be in one giant DI football division with a 63 max. amount of schol.

How's that for a view?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:35 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
Bisonfan01234,

I would call it an opinion. I don't think much of the view. I graduated from a D1AA school, but I see NO reason to demote the SEC or Big 10 to 1AA status.

So far we have not had any one suggestion get 60% of the czars to vote fro it. Does anyone want to set up a vote again?

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:33 am 

Quote:
Bisonfan01234,

I would call it an opinion. I don't think much of the view. I graduated from a D1AA school, but I see NO reason to demote the SEC or Big 10 to 1AA status.

So far we have not had any one suggestion get 60% of the czars to vote fro it. Does anyone want to set up a vote again?

FBfan


It would create more parity, though.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:52 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
Bisonfan01234,

Parity for whom? A BCS school would "put a hurt" (i.e. blow out) a 1AA school, even if they they both had 63 scholarships. If you want a game with both sides evenly matched, then you want MORE divisions.

If you had a division with 85, another with 63 and a third with 40 or less, then you would have parity within each division. Of course, in this set up, you would somehow have less schools in the 64-85 division, since you would want about 1/3 of all D1 schools in each division. ( Note the BCS has about 70 schools, which is about 1/3 of the total D1 schools.)

FBfan


Last edited by fbfan on Sat Apr 16, 2005 6:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:05 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
On a different track. The NCAA could set up their play-off for teams that play 10 or less games, and have 63 or less schlorships, and drop the designations A and AA. The NCAA could also set up 1 (!) game after the bowls for the championship for the 11 game/85 schlorship schools.

Also, I still like the idea that a D1AA school moving up must meet the attendance criteria for 5 years before declaring for D1A, even if current schools are grandfathered. Something must be done to stop, or at least slow down the migration of AA to A.

FBfan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: FB Czar game
PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:53 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 2:15 pm
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville
Instead of starting a rule change thread, I will use this one. If you have a rule change idea: Fire away.

Since the "death penalty" rule is so harsh that it will probably never be used again, I came out with a milder version that I call the coma. A school hit with the coma penalty would not be allowed to give any NEW scholarships for one year. Current athletes would still keep their scholarships, and the school would still play its regular schedule, but would miss a full signing class.

To keep schools from beating this rule with gray shirts (January enrollments) and "placing" kids in prep school or junior college, those avenues would be closed as well. No new student athlete could get a scholarship until June of the second year. In the second year of the probation, the school could sigh ju-cos but not prep school players. In the third year they could sigh prep school players, but not ju-cos.

To make my point clear and use round numbers, I will show what would have happen had a school been penalized in 2000 for the 2001 season. Thus year 1 is 2001, and there is no confusion. I will show it also for a "regular" probation of 26 scholarships.

year 0/2000. Two schools hit with probation. One get coma and the other get 26 scholarships eliminated in a 10/10/6 penalty. In this case State U. (ST) will get the coma, and Tech will get the regular.

year 1/2001. ST can offer no scholarships. Tech is reduced to 15. Tech signs the 15 best it can, and places 3 or 4 in junior college. It may also place a prop 48 in prep school.

year 2/2002. ST signs 25. It cannot sign any prep school players so the class of 2004 is still empty. Tech signs 15. However, again it is the best 15 it can, so while ST is better off, in 2002, the additional players are probably not the blue chip prospects. Tech will have 20-25 blue chip players in this 2 year period while ST will only have the 15. Also, Tech can have still get the prep school player it placed in 2001, although he will count toward the 15. Tech will also sign and place 4 to 8 in junior college. ST can do this, and may send 1 or 2, but would have no NCAA reason other than prop 48.

year 3/2003 St will sign 25, but will NOT be allowed to sign any ju-cos. Tech, which now has 19 scholarships signs 2 of the 4 it placed, among with the best 17 other players it can. Tech may sign 30-40 blue chips in this period. ST will probably only sign 25 to 30, and will have NO JUNIOR CLASS.

year 4/2004. Both are off probation, but ST has NO SENIOR CLASS. Both sign 25, but Tech will probably have 4 or 5 (usually runs about half of those placed) ju-cos. Total blue chip signees for the four year period assuming both capable of getting 10-15 year, would be: ST 35-45, Tech 45-50. Plus, while Tech will be thin in numbers and subject the injury bug, they would never be decimated the way ST would be IMHO.

FBfan




Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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:  
 

 

cron




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