Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

New Bowl & Championship Format

Creebuzz said:
+1 I actually liked the old bowl system. The uncertainty of #1 and the subsequent arguments with other alums were half the fun. Now it's NFL light with a mass market appeal to the bridge and tunnel crowd who have absolutely no interest in the actual universities. In any case, the suggested proposal may be less awful than the current one.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The only reason I started caring for the University of Colorado was because of CU football. Now I care about all of CU's athletics and academics. I'm not saying that everyone would be like me in that respect but CU's fan base would grow and so would their coffers. It's obvious you can't depend solely on alumni. No university can or does. The SEC stadiums are already half full (or more) of non-alumni. It could become as much of a state pride thing as an alumni thing. I think that's a good thing.
 
buff190 said:
I disagree. The only reason I started caring for the University of Colorado was because of CU football. Now I care about all of CU's athletics and academics. I'm not saying that everyone would be like me in that respect but CU's fan base would grow and so would their coffers. It's obvious you can't depend solely on alumni. No university can or does. The SEC stadiums are already half full (or more) of non-alumni. It could become as much of a state pride thing as an alumni thing. I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

I live in SEC country. I've been exposed to too many morons who love their college team, even if they couldn't find the school within 100 miles on a map. College football would be better if catered to alums in my opinion, rather than the general fan who may, for example, decide to poison some trees. Games at Mile High are an extension of this failed policy. End threadjack.
 
Creebuzz said:
I live in SEC country. I've been exposed to too many morons who love their college team, even if they couldn't find the school within 100 miles on a map. College football would be better if catered to alums in my opinion, rather than the general fan who may, for example, decide to poison some trees. Games at Mile High are an extension of this failed policy. End threadjack.
Click to expand...

Go root for your high school team then. Should be safe there from all of us moronic fans. I go out of my way at CU games to help reverse CU's bad fan reputation undeniably created and perpetuated by CU students and soon to be alums. Now end threadjack.

Oh and Go Buffs!
 
And to comment on the thread topic, I love the idea of getting the games back to New Years day. I also liked the idea of the semifinal games being played on campuses and a neutral site for the CC game but I guess that idea isn't gaining much traction. I also like the idea of the winners of the Four BCS bowls moving on to the 4 team playoffs. Maybe someday in the future for this one.

Bottom line is I am just happy that something is happening instead of nothing...for now. Whatever they decide on should be an improvement over what we have right now.
 
buff190 said:
Go root for your high school team then. Should be safe there from all of us moronic fans. I go out of my way at CU games to help reverse CU's bad fan reputation undeniably created and perpetuated by CU students and soon to be alums. Now end threadjack.

Oh and Go Buffs!
Click to expand...

College football is becoming indistinguishable from pro football. In part, I believe this is the result of mass marketing of the sport away from the traditional stakeholders (alumni, students, faculty) toward the general public. However, collegiate sports are supposed to exist, at least in name, to enhance the academic and social environment at the university. Its goal is not to entertain the general public (at least not primarily). When that focus gets lost, you have a rise in what I call the "Memphis model of college basketball". That is, recruit players with no pretense of providing an education. Sadly, with the ever growing obsession with who's number one and the development of the BCS, the focus gets more blurry each year.

Having stated the above, I liked the old system. I thought it was better at preserving the collegial nature of the games. I thought it better served the stakeholders. I realize I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.
 
Creebuzz said:
College football is becoming indistinguishable from pro football. In part, I believe this is the result of mass marketing of the sport away from the traditional stakeholders (alumni, students, faculty) toward the general public. However, collegiate sports are supposed to exist, at least in name, to enhance the academic and social environment at the university. Its goal is not to entertain the general public (at least not primarily). When that focus gets lost, you have a rise in what I call the "Memphis model of college basketball". That is, recruit players with no pretense of providing an education. Sadly, with the ever growing obsession with who's number one and the development of the BCS, the focus gets more blurry each year.

Having stated the above, I liked the old system. I thought it was better at preserving the collegial nature of the games. I thought it better served the stakeholders. I realize I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

If you can't distinguish pro ball from college ball, I'm going to have issues crediting the rest of what you say.
 
Creebuzz said:
College football is becoming indistinguishable from pro football. In part, I believe this is the result of mass marketing of the sport away from the traditional stakeholders (alumni, students, faculty) toward the general public. However, collegiate sports are supposed to exist, at least in name, to enhance the academic and social environment at the university. Its goal is not to entertain the general public (at least not primarily). When that focus gets lost, you have a rise in what I call the "Memphis model of college basketball". That is, recruit players with no pretense of providing an education. Sadly, with the ever growing obsession with who's number one and the development of the BCS, the focus gets more blurry each year.

Having stated the above, I liked the old system. I thought it was better at preserving the collegial nature of the games. I thought it better served the stakeholders. I realize I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think the NCAA is doing a great job of addressing these concerns. From instituting the APR to recent changes implemented academic requirements for JUCO transfers to be eligible for competition to now creating the automatic "academic redshirt" for recruits who are at the bottom end of qualifiers. There's a parallel path that's protecting the integrity of college athletics while the changes to maximize revenue are occurring.
 
All scenarios will suck until a playoff round of the top 16 teams is created. In which each matchup is considered a "Bowl Game". The Final Four would be BCS Bowls.
 
Buffnik said:
I think the NCAA is doing a great job of addressing these concerns. From instituting the APR to recent changes implemented academic requirements for JUCO transfers to be eligible for competition to now creating the automatic "academic redshirt" for recruits who are at the bottom end of qualifiers. There's a parallel path that's protecting the integrity of college athletics while the changes to maximize revenue are occurring.
Click to expand...

This is unpossible.
 
zbuff said:
I'd much prefer 8 teams, using existing bowls as has been suggested. That only adds one game for four teams to the plus 1 format.
Click to expand...

This was my preference as well. Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange all have their bowls with the top 8 teams starting the playoffs. They can then auction off a format for the next two weekends for the final 4 and the championship game. 4 teams playing past new years would not be that big of a deal. It puts all major conferences with their champion in the playoff, plus 2 at large teams.

Depending on how you count the Big East, it would be Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10, ACC, SEC, Big East (? or at large), plus two more. SEC still has the chance to get two teams in (their issue with the playoff). The Big 10 and Pac 12 can preserve the Rose Bowl (their issue with the playoff. The little guys still get their chance if their poll numbers are good enough.

I'm actually surprised this didn't happen.
 
HUFset said:
All scenarios will suck until a playoff round of the top 16 teams is created. In which each matchup is considered a "Bowl Game". The Final Four would be BCS Bowls.
Click to expand...

No, the scenario you described would suck.
 
I think there should also be a stipulation that a conference must have a championship game for them to have a tie in. I know this will probably not be a problem with the way the super conferences are panning out but in years past you could possibly have a situation where there are 3 teams from the same conference ranked high enough to get into this play off. Say if Georgia beats LSU in the SEC championship this year. I think I would blow my brains out of I had to watch 3 SEC teams in a playoff of 8.
 
josef said:
I think there should also be a stipulation that a conference must have a championship game for them to have a tie in. I know this will probably not be a problem with the way the super conferences are panning out but in years past you could possibly have a situation where there are 3 teams from the same conference ranked high enough to get into this play off. Say if Georgia beats LSU in the SEC championship this year. I think I would blow my brains out of I had to watch 3 SEC teams in a playoff of 8.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem with that scenario if 6 BCS conference champs plus the 2 highest rated teams were in, and those teams happened to both be from the same BCS conference. Turning the tables, what if CU was the 3rd PAC-12 team to make it?
 
HUFset said:
All scenarios will suck until a playoff round of the top 16 teams is created. In which each matchup is considered a "Bowl Game". The Final Four would be BCS Bowls.
Click to expand...

Unless you are a fan of team #17, then you want 24. Then team #25 complains and we go to #32.

You will never convince me that there are 16 team that deserve a shot at the championship at the end of the year.

I can deal with 4 teams, that arguement can be made that there are 4 teams that based on the entire season are the best team and settle it on the field. Beyond that you are just playing playoffs to have playoffs.
 
Let me clarify. I only have a problem with 3 teams being in the pool of 8 if they are from the SEC. I am extremely envious and bitter of their success. To be honest now that I think more about it I do have a problem with the conference champs going because what if UCLA had snuck a win in against Oregon last year and then we have them as one of the 8 playoff teams? That doesn’t fly with me.

New proposal. Keep all current bowls intact. Top 4 teams have the option to opt out of their bowl affiliation to play in the semifinal and then national championship game much the same way they do for the BCS championship now. This preserves the current bowl game affiliations and only adds three new bowl games. Call them whatever...
 
MtnBuff said:
Unless you are a fan of team #17, then you want 24. Then team #25 complains and we go to #32.

You will never convince me that there are 16 team that deserve a shot at the championship at the end of the year.

I can deal with 4 teams, that arguement can be made that there are 4 teams that based on the entire season are the best team and settle it on the field. Beyond that you are just playing playoffs to have playoffs.
Click to expand...

I think top 4 ranked conference champions is the best option. I can understand the rational behind 8 teams. 16 teams is silly. No way you shold be in contention for a NC if you lost 3 games during the year.
 
HouBuff said:
I think top 4 ranked conference champions is the best option. I can understand the rational behind 8 teams. 16 teams is silly. No way you shold be in contention for a NC if you lost 3 games during the year.
Click to expand...

If you go to 8, there will be some 3-loss teams in there. That's where things get really muddy.
 
HouBuff said:
I think top 4 ranked conference champions is the best option. I can understand the rational behind 8 teams. 16 teams is silly. No way you shold be in contention for a NC if you lost 3 games during the year.
Click to expand...

This option is supportable from the standpoint that each of the top 3-4 teams could legitimately make an arguement that they were the best team that year. By coming from different conferences they will normally have not played each other that season or if so it was early in the season. Say team A from conference 1 has only lost to team B from conference 2 which lost a different game and team C went undefeated in conference 3 but against a weaker schedule and team 4 lost one game against a tough conference opponent in conference D then each would have at least a decent arguement.

Team 5 which lost two games while there is a major conference team that is undefeated has no legitimate argument, same as team 6 which didn't win their own conference.

No matter what system you pick somebody is going to think that they should have had a chance but to me the idea that the #8 team which didn't win their own conference is the NC is a joke.
 
Buffnik said:
If you go to 8, there will be some 3-loss teams in there. That's where things get really muddy.
Click to expand...

Here's the top 25 going into the bowls last year. If you pick the top 8, you probably won't get a 3 loss team. If you went with conference champions plus 2, you could end up with some garbage 4 or 5 loss Big East team. It would be best to stick to 4 teams.

1
LSU (60)
13-0
1500
2
Alabama
11-1
1418
3
Oklahoma State
11-1
1400
4
Stanford
11-1
1283
5
USC
10-2
1179
6
Oregon
11-2
1170
7
Arkansas
10-2
1148
8
Boise State
11-1
1107
9
Wisconsin
11-2
1038
10
South Carolina
10-2
946
11
Kansas State
10-2
829
12
Michigan State
10-3
733
13
Michigan
10-2
707
14
Clemson
10-3
663
15
Baylor
9-3
656
16
TCU
10-2
632
17
Virginia Tech
11-2
591
18
Georgia
10-3
566
19
Oklahoma
9-3
386
20
Houston
12-1
370
21
Nebraska
9-3
363
22
Southern Miss
11-2
336
23
West Virginia
9-3
199
24
Penn State
9-3
129
25
Florida State
8-4
49
 
all the bcs bowls should feed into the playoffs remove the current championship game... so you have 8-4-2
 
OK. Sounds like 8 teams would work then.

16 makes no sense, but 8 would work.

I think you take the 6 conference champs from the Power 6 along with 2 at-large teams based on highest ranking rather than Top 8 in the rankings, though.

Last year, that would have put Alabama and Arkansas in the tourney and would have given us the Big East champ (9-3 West Virginia) instead of Boise State making it. Not much of a concern to me, actually, since the main BCS busters have been Utah, Boise State and TCU. They're all in Power 6 conferences now. Houston was close, and they are now too. BYU's independent, so they'd be like Notre Dame light.
 
Buffnik said:
OK. Sounds like 8 teams would work then.

16 makes no sense, but 8 would work.

I think you take the 6 conference champs from the Power 6 along with 2 at-large teams based on highest ranking rather than Top 8 in the rankings, though.

Last year, that would have put Alabama and Arkansas in the tourney and would have given us the Big East champ (9-3 West Virginia) instead of Boise State making it. Not much of a concern to me, actually, since the main BCS busters have been Utah, Boise State and TCU. They're all in Power 6 conferences now. Houston was close, and they are now too. BYU's independent, so they'd be like Notre Dame light.
Click to expand...
Yup. This is what I've wanted for a while now. Any smaller and some years there will be questions. Any bigger and it becomes a season weakening tournament.

Any team good enough to get into the top 8 tourney and WIN it will have, with near certainty, the strongest argument for being the national champion.

I also, btw, want the top 2 seeds to have a bye. That would be SICK. The battles for that bye would be intense.
 
Darth Snow said:
Yup. This is what I've wanted for a while now. Any smaller and some years there will be questions. Any bigger and it becomes a season weakening tournament.

Any team good enough to get into the top 8 tourney and WIN it will have, with near certainty, the strongest argument for being the national champion.

I also, btw, want the top 2 seeds to have a bye. That would be SICK. The battles for that bye would be intense.
Click to expand...

So you'd want 6 teams with the top 2 getting a bye? I thought that too, but then realized that it would only be an interim layout until they expanded it to 8. No way in hell the NCAA is going to give up 2 playoff football games that include the marquee teams from the season. The networks and university presidents would crucify them for leaving that much money on the table.
 
Buffnik said:
So you'd want 6 teams with the top 2 getting a bye? I thought that too, but then realized that it would only be an interim layout until they expanded it to 8. No way in hell the NCAA is going to give up 2 playoff football games that include the marquee teams from the season. The networks and university presidents would crucify them for leaving that much money on the table.
Click to expand...
umm what?
8 teams. top 2 of 8 get a bye. Does my math not work out?

:lol:
 
Darth Snow said:
umm what?
8 teams. top 2 of 8 get a bye. Does my math not work out?

:lol:
Click to expand...

Math works. Money doesn't. The two "byes" are two premium games that are never played. I like it, but we'll never see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top