No, especially not for Cal.71Bear said:
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
Given the disparity between the North and South in the P12, perhaps this is the answer.
I like this approach. It would probably require cutting 1, maybe 2 games from the regular season schedule which is fine with me. I've long advocated elimination of P5 teams vs. Presbyterian and their ilk.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
59bear said:I like this approach. It would probably require cutting 1, maybe 2 games from the regular season schedule which is fine with me. I've long advocated elimination of P5 teams vs. Presbyterian and their ilk.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
There are 129 college football teams, why would you punish 113 of them by taking away extra games to reward 16? Of which 10 - 12 already get an unfair advantage in terms of money, exposure, and media hype.59bear said:I like this approach. It would probably require cutting 1, maybe 2 games from the regular season schedule which is fine with me. I've long advocated elimination of P5 teams vs. Presbyterian and their ilk.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
I would be okay with it if the conference guaranteed the local rivalries. That means the California schools play each other every year, the NW schools play each other and SW (aka Arizona / Utah / Colorado) schools play each other every year. I'm cool with missing one of the NW and SW schools per year, rather than two SW schools.71Bear said:
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
Given the disparity between the North and South in the P12, perhaps this is the answer.
I believe the conference added Utah and Colorado specifically because they needed divisions to hold the conference championship game and to have divisions they needed two more teams. Back in the day the Pac-12 talked to the NCAA to get a waiver to hold a CCG with 10 teams (which would allow the schools to play a complete round robin and then pair the top two teams for a rematch), but the NCAA rejected this proposal. Fast forward several years, and the Big-12 made the same request and the NCAA allowed it (once again the Pac gets screwed). Basically, you no longer need divisions to hold a conference championship game, and this proposal would not prevent the hosting of a CCG.wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
not without 10 teams.71Bear said:
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
Given the disparity between the North and South in the P12, perhaps this is the answer.
the SEC was potentially the NCG. The Pac 12 championship will never be the NCG.TheSouseFamily said:wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
From Sports Media Watch:
"Last Friday's Washington-Utah Pac-12 Championship Game had a 2.6 rating and 4.06 million viewers on FOX, up 13% in ratings and 11% in viewership from last year on ESPN (USC-Stanford: 2.3, 3.66M) but down 24% and 28% respectively from 2016 on FOX (Washington-Colorado: 3.4, 5.67M).
The Huskies' win was the lowest rated and least-watched Pac-12 Championship on broadcast television (five telecasts). It was also the least-watched of this year's "Power 5" conference championships."
This is close to what the AAC game (Memphis/UCF) got at around 3.5M viewers but a far cry from the 17.5M viewers the SEC got.
Very interesting....golden sloth said:I believe the conference added Utah and Colorado specifically because they needed divisions to hold the conference championship game and to have divisions they needed two more teams. Back in the day the Pac-12 talked to the NCAA to get a waiver to hold a CCG with 10 teams (which would allow the schools to play a complete round robin and then pair the top two teams for a rematch), but the NCAA rejected this proposal. Fast forward several years, and the Big-12 made the same request and the NCAA allowed it (once again the Pac gets screwed). Basically, you no longer need divisions to hold a conference championship game, and this proposal would not prevent the hosting of a CCG.wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
Pac gets screwed either way. If we stayed Pac-10, there would be no P12 networks, we would have lost out on TV revenue. Half of our games would still have no TV coverage.golden sloth said:I believe the conference added Utah and Colorado specifically because they needed divisions to hold the conference championship game and to have divisions they needed two more teams. Back in the day the Pac-12 talked to the NCAA to get a waiver to hold a CCG with 10 teams (which would allow the schools to play a complete round robin and then pair the top two teams for a rematch), but the NCAA rejected this proposal. Fast forward several years, and the Big-12 made the same request and the NCAA allowed it (once again the Pac gets screwed). Basically, you no longer need divisions to hold a conference championship game, and this proposal would not prevent the hosting of a CCG.wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
The Pac got screwed because Tennis Larry and his first deputy commissioner (Weiberg) talked the presidents/chancellors into running the Pac-12 network themselves, rather than having it run by ESPN or Fox like the SEC, ACC, and Big Ten do. Weiberg took the fall for this enormous blunder, but for some reason Larry hasn't yet been fired.oskirules said:Pac gets screwed either way. If we stayed Pac-10, there would be no P12 networks, we would have lost out on TV revenue. Half of our games would still have no TV coverage.golden sloth said:I believe the conference added Utah and Colorado specifically because they needed divisions to hold the conference championship game and to have divisions they needed two more teams. Back in the day the Pac-12 talked to the NCAA to get a waiver to hold a CCG with 10 teams (which would allow the schools to play a complete round robin and then pair the top two teams for a rematch), but the NCAA rejected this proposal. Fast forward several years, and the Big-12 made the same request and the NCAA allowed it (once again the Pac gets screwed). Basically, you no longer need divisions to hold a conference championship game, and this proposal would not prevent the hosting of a CCG.wifeisafurd said:
Dumb question: does the conference make much money on the Championship Game? If not, drop divisions, if so, keep them. The conference is losing big time relative to the other P5 conferences on attendance and TV revenues, why make the deficit larger?
golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
01Bear said:golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Also, while the rest of us are no longer in college, the players are. As such, they should not have to olay more games, instead of studying, just to gratify our desires. The whole point of going to college is supposed to be to get a formal education, not to play sports. Sure, there are some schools and even some athletes for whom this is not the case, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be encouraging that or otherwise pushing that narrative.
If there must be a playoff system, expand it to 8 teams and remove the conference championship games. Instead, make each regular season champ the representative of its conference. Then go to a 4-2-1 elimination tournament. I understand there are ten conferences (Power 5 and Group of 5) and only eight slots. The two teams (conference champions) with the lowest ranks will get left out.
As for the arguments that some conferences are tougher than others. So what? In the NBA, the Weatern Conference had better teams (1-15) than the Eastern Conference. Yet, no one claimed that the Western Conference Championship series crowned the champ. Rather, the WC champ still had to olay the Eastern Conference Champion. Similarly, in the MLB, the AL had better playoff teams than the NL this year. Yet, the AL champ still had to play the NL champ. The second best teams in each conference/league didn't get a spot in the finals because they failed to win their respective conference/league. The same rule should apply to the college football championship tournament. Win your conference or go home.
Since I only watch games on TV I watch any game that looks interesting and am not limited by my Cal affiliation (I do watch or record all Bear games that are available to me). Thus, I get the same number of weeks of viewing and wouldn't mind a bit giving up Cal vs. Nowhere State (or Alabama vs. Citadel). Small price to pay for a better playoff system.fat_slice said:59bear said:I like this approach. It would probably require cutting 1, maybe 2 games from the regular season schedule which is fine with me. I've long advocated elimination of P5 teams vs. Presbyterian and their ilk.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
How dare you take one game of football fun away from me! I am violently opposed - college season is too short as it is.
The first time the Pac-12/Big-10 champs are both in the top 2 or 4, this is going to be a disaster. You can't have it both ways. You can either keep the bowls, or you can expand the playoffs. The Rose Bowl is already nearly lost in significance vis a vis the Pac-12/Big-10. If you expand it, and then have it host a quarterfinal game, you might as well not even call it the Rose Bowl.calumnus said:01Bear said:golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Also, while the rest of us are no longer in college, the players are. As such, they should not have to olay more games, instead of studying, just to gratify our desires. The whole point of going to college is supposed to be to get a formal education, not to play sports. Sure, there are some schools and even some athletes for whom this is not the case, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be encouraging that or otherwise pushing that narrative.
If there must be a playoff system, expand it to 8 teams and remove the conference championship games. Instead, make each regular season champ the representative of its conference. Then go to a 4-2-1 elimination tournament. I understand there are ten conferences (Power 5 and Group of 5) and only eight slots. The two teams (conference champions) with the lowest ranks will get left out.
As for the arguments that some conferences are tougher than others. So what? In the NBA, the Weatern Conference had better teams (1-15) than the Eastern Conference. Yet, no one claimed that the Western Conference Championship series crowned the champ. Rather, the WC champ still had to olay the Eastern Conference Champion. Similarly, in the MLB, the AL had better playoff teams than the NL this year. Yet, the AL champ still had to play the NL champ. The second best teams in each conference/league didn't get a spot in the finals because they failed to win their respective conference/league. The same rule should apply to the college football championship tournament. Win your conference or go home.
10 champs from 10 conferences works just fine. 4 teams have a play-in game for 2 of the 8 slots. The P5 champs plus the highest rated team of the other 5 get the 6 slots.
The current BCS bowls are the first round of the 8 team tournament. The PAC-12 champ always hosts the Rose Bowl against the Big10 champ.
All the minor bowls can continue with all the other teams with winning records available.
1 or 2 of tge 4 teams in the two play-in games only potentially play an extra game if they make it to the National Championship game.
We actually discussed this in a different thread. Whether you claim no divisions exist, or shuffle the divisions annually to reflect a semi-round robin schedule makes minimal difference. If we did this in the P12 to accommodate a move to a 8 game conference schedule, you'd still play your traditional rival 8 out of 11 years. Not so bad. It'd be a question of whether the schools would perceive the revenue loss from not having a sold out rivalry game 3 out of 11 years to be offset by the higher chance of being in a bowl game.71Bear said:
https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff
Given the disparity between the North and South in the P12, perhaps this is the answer.
GMP said:The first time the Pac-12/Big-10 champs are both in the top 2 or 4, this is going to be a disaster. You can't have it both ways. You can either keep the bowls, or you can expand the playoffs. The Rose Bowl is already nearly lost in significance vis a vis the Pac-12/Big-10. If you expand it, and then have it host a quarterfinal game, you might as well not even call it the Rose Bowl.calumnus said:01Bear said:golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Also, while the rest of us are no longer in college, the players are. As such, they should not have to olay more games, instead of studying, just to gratify our desires. The whole point of going to college is supposed to be to get a formal education, not to play sports. Sure, there are some schools and even some athletes for whom this is not the case, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be encouraging that or otherwise pushing that narrative.
If there must be a playoff system, expand it to 8 teams and remove the conference championship games. Instead, make each regular season champ the representative of its conference. Then go to a 4-2-1 elimination tournament. I understand there are ten conferences (Power 5 and Group of 5) and only eight slots. The two teams (conference champions) with the lowest ranks will get left out.
As for the arguments that some conferences are tougher than others. So what? In the NBA, the Weatern Conference had better teams (1-15) than the Eastern Conference. Yet, no one claimed that the Western Conference Championship series crowned the champ. Rather, the WC champ still had to olay the Eastern Conference Champion. Similarly, in the MLB, the AL had better playoff teams than the NL this year. Yet, the AL champ still had to play the NL champ. The second best teams in each conference/league didn't get a spot in the finals because they failed to win their respective conference/league. The same rule should apply to the college football championship tournament. Win your conference or go home.
10 champs from 10 conferences works just fine. 4 teams have a play-in game for 2 of the 8 slots. The P5 champs plus the highest rated team of the other 5 get the 6 slots.
The current BCS bowls are the first round of the 8 team tournament. The PAC-12 champ always hosts the Rose Bowl against the Big10 champ.
All the minor bowls can continue with all the other teams with winning records available.
1 or 2 of tge 4 teams in the two play-in games only potentially play an extra game if they make it to the National Championship game.
calumnus said:01Bear said:golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Also, while the rest of us are no longer in college, the players are. As such, they should not have to olay more games, instead of studying, just to gratify our desires. The whole point of going to college is supposed to be to get a formal education, not to play sports. Sure, there are some schools and even some athletes for whom this is not the case, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be encouraging that or otherwise pushing that narrative.
If there must be a playoff system, expand it to 8 teams and remove the conference championship games. Instead, make each regular season champ the representative of its conference. Then go to a 4-2-1 elimination tournament. I understand there are ten conferences (Power 5 and Group of 5) and only eight slots. The two teams (conference champions) with the lowest ranks will get left out.
As for the arguments that some conferences are tougher than others. So what? In the NBA, the Weatern Conference had better teams (1-15) than the Eastern Conference. Yet, no one claimed that the Western Conference Championship series crowned the champ. Rather, the WC champ still had to olay the Eastern Conference Champion. Similarly, in the MLB, the AL had better playoff teams than the NL this year. Yet, the AL champ still had to play the NL champ. The second best teams in each conference/league didn't get a spot in the finals because they failed to win their respective conference/league. The same rule should apply to the college football championship tournament. Win your conference or go home.
10 champs from 10 conferences works just fine. 4 teams have a play-in game for 2 of the 8 slots. The P5 champs plus the highest rated team of the other 5 get the 6 slots.
The current BCS bowls are the first round of the 8 team tournament. The PAC-12 champ always hosts the Rose Bowl against the Big10 champ.
All the minor bowls can continue with all the other teams with winning records available.
1 or 2 of tge 4 teams in the two play-in games only potentially play an extra game if they make it to the National Championship game.
01Bear said:calumnus said:01Bear said:golden sloth said:Never! There should be absolutely NO AT LARGE SCHOOLS. If you want to win the National Title start by winning your damn conference! You can't be the best team in the nation if you aren't the best team in your conference.Bear19 said:
The Big-10 and Pac-12 should be pushing for playoff expansion instead of the beauty pageant we have now. All 11 conference champions and five at large teams,16 total, mean that if a school wins their conference, they will get to compete for the national title.
All the other NCAA college football divisions and the NAIA have 16 team playoffs. It works for them, will work for D1.
Also, while the rest of us are no longer in college, the players are. As such, they should not have to olay more games, instead of studying, just to gratify our desires. The whole point of going to college is supposed to be to get a formal education, not to play sports. Sure, there are some schools and even some athletes for whom this is not the case, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should be encouraging that or otherwise pushing that narrative.
If there must be a playoff system, expand it to 8 teams and remove the conference championship games. Instead, make each regular season champ the representative of its conference. Then go to a 4-2-1 elimination tournament. I understand there are ten conferences (Power 5 and Group of 5) and only eight slots. The two teams (conference champions) with the lowest ranks will get left out.
As for the arguments that some conferences are tougher than others. So what? In the NBA, the Weatern Conference had better teams (1-15) than the Eastern Conference. Yet, no one claimed that the Western Conference Championship series crowned the champ. Rather, the WC champ still had to olay the Eastern Conference Champion. Similarly, in the MLB, the AL had better playoff teams than the NL this year. Yet, the AL champ still had to play the NL champ. The second best teams in each conference/league didn't get a spot in the finals because they failed to win their respective conference/league. The same rule should apply to the college football championship tournament. Win your conference or go home.
10 champs from 10 conferences works just fine. 4 teams have a play-in game for 2 of the 8 slots. The P5 champs plus the highest rated team of the other 5 get the 6 slots.
The current BCS bowls are the first round of the 8 team tournament. The PAC-12 champ always hosts the Rose Bowl against the Big10 champ.
All the minor bowls can continue with all the other teams with winning records available.
1 or 2 of tge 4 teams in the two play-in games only potentially play an extra game if they make it to the National Championship game.
That's an interesting idea, but I still can't get on board with it. As you pointed out, it would still require an extra game for the first two or four teams in. Regardless of whether any if these teams make it into the final game, it would at least require one more week(end) of games. Again, this takes up more study time for the student-athletes.
That said, I can definitely get on board with the idea of the Pac-12 and Big-10 conference champions playing one another every year in the Rose Bowl.
TheSouseFamily said:
Totally agree with you, Calumnus. The academic challenge is way tougher in basketball than it is football. At least the PAC-12 keeps games on Thursdays (mostly). In other conferences, you could play any day of the week except Friday, which makes it a little difficult to have some semblance of a predictable schedule and routine with respect to classes and studying.
Softball plays something like 55-60 games in a split season and also has extensive travel for tournaments, especially if they make the national tourney and get past the regionals. These ladies generally have high GPAs and grad rates so the scheduling impact on academics doesn't appear to be a problem.TheSouseFamily said:
Totally agree with you, Calumnus. The academic challenge is way tougher in basketball than it is football. At least the PAC-12 keeps games on Thursdays (mostly). In other conferences, you could play any day of the week except Friday, which makes it a little difficult to have some semblance of a predictable schedule and routine with respect to classes and studying.
59bear said:Softball plays something like 55-60 games in a split season and also has extensive travel for tournaments, especially if they make the national tourney and get past the regionals. These ladies generally have high GPAs and grad rates so the scheduling impact on academics doesn't appear to be a problem.TheSouseFamily said:
Totally agree with you, Calumnus. The academic challenge is way tougher in basketball than it is football. At least the PAC-12 keeps games on Thursdays (mostly). In other conferences, you could play any day of the week except Friday, which makes it a little difficult to have some semblance of a predictable schedule and routine with respect to classes and studying.
Softball has had some of the worst grad rates in all of Cal's Athletic Department.59bear said:Softball plays something like 55-60 games in a split season and also has extensive travel for tournaments, especially if they make the national tourney and get past the regionals. These ladies generally have high GPAs and grad rates so the scheduling impact on academics doesn't appear to be a problem.TheSouseFamily said:
Totally agree with you, Calumnus. The academic challenge is way tougher in basketball than it is football. At least the PAC-12 keeps games on Thursdays (mostly). In other conferences, you could play any day of the week except Friday, which makes it a little difficult to have some semblance of a predictable schedule and routine with respect to classes and studying.
Practices and three weekends of games in the fall.calumnus said:
Does softball play Thursday night road games every other week? Does softball play in every part of the academic year?
