Official 2012-2013 NCAA Football Thread

[Soxbadger]

My response was actually supposed to say (to Knightni) which is why it probably made no sense. It shouldnt matter the perceived strength of SEC, the reason is that if 2 SEC teams make it, likely they will be the SEC champion and the SEC 3, as opposed to SEC 2. The reason for this is SEC 2 may lose in CCG and thus SEC 3 will jump them. Which is why just taking the top team from each conference makes the most sense.

 

If you want to be NC, you should win your conference.

[Kyyle23]

I don't agree with this at all. 16 teams would basically mean any major conference team with two losses or fewer gets in (Depending on eligibility rules of course. The SEC would demand no limit while everyone else would want a maximum). So many of the games that mattered this year would become meaningless because teams were already solidly in the field. Alabama and Georgia both make it, Oregon and K-State are both in even with a loss, the ND/Pitt game wouldn't have had nearly as dire consequences, ect.

 

The only games that would REALLY impact the playoffs would be championship games in single-bid conferences. That's why I really don't want it getting bigger than 8 teams. You still have to have a pretty solid year to make the top-8, if you go much further than that you start getting teams that had disappointing seasons by their standards like LSU and FSU in the field when they didn't do a whole lot to really earn it.

 

Thats fine, I enjoy tournament conditions and I see this as a good thing where some more teams are involved. In all of the major sports we watch, the regular seasons matter, whether it is for merely getting into the playoffs at all or for getting seeded into a favorable matchup. These Upper level teams, the Alabamas, Georgias, Oregons are going to want to make sure they have a matchup that is best for them, or even a bye week.

 

Whatever comes in the playoff format will be more appealing to me than the current system, so I am happy either way.

[whitesoxfan99]

My response was actually supposed to say (to Knightni) which is why it probably made no sense. It shouldnt matter the perceived strength of SEC, the reason is that if 2 SEC teams make it, likely they will be the SEC champion and the SEC 3, as opposed to SEC 2. The reason for this is SEC 2 may lose in CCG and thus SEC 3 will jump them. Which is why just taking the top team from each conference makes the most sense.

 

If you want to be NC, you should win your conference.

 

So this year you would propose that an 8-5 Wisconsin team should go to the playoffs over Texas A&M or South Carolina or Georgia, etc? That makes no sense at all.

[ZoomSlowik]

My response was actually supposed to say (to Knightni) which is why it probably made no sense. It shouldnt matter the perceived strength of SEC, the reason is that if 2 SEC teams make it, likely they will be the SEC champion and the SEC 3, as opposed to SEC 2. The reason for this is SEC 2 may lose in CCG and thus SEC 3 will jump them. Which is why just taking the top team from each conference makes the most sense.

 

If you want to be NC, you should win your conference.

 

The perceived strength of the SEC does matter though because they have significantly more barriers to winning their conference. How many SEC teams could have won the ACC this year? I'd lean towards something like 5. It's a disincentive to play in a good conference that will make more money for your program.

 

You'll never get the SEC to agree to something that gives them one bid and that's it given their dominance the last several years.

 

As for the first part, I don't think you really know who the SEC 2-5 is most years because they don't play equal schedules anyways. Alabama missed Florida and SC, A&M missed Georgia and SC, Florida missed Bama and A&M, ect. They'd take whomever they think is the best option.

[Soxbadger]

So this year you would propose that an 8-5 Wisconsin team should go to the playoffs over Texas A&M or South Carolina or Georgia, etc? That makes no sense at all.

 

This year was an aberration as an undefeated OSU team should have been in the CCG over Wisconsin.

 

And it makes perfect sense. AM and Georgia lost to Alabama (Not sure why you mentioned Scar, they barely beat Michigan and were trashed by Florida). The best team in the SEC was Alabama. Why should Bama have to risk going 1-1 against AM and AM being Champ?

 

I dont like the idea of rematch games. Its just more fun for me to see the 4 conferences best teams play it out and see what happens.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

The perceived strength of the SEC does matter though because they have significantly more barriers to winning their conference. How many SEC teams could have won the ACC this year? I'd lean towards something like 5. It's a disincentive to play in a good conference that will make more money for your program.

 

You'll never get the SEC to agree to something that gives them one bid and that's it given their dominance the last several years.

 

As for the first part, I don't think you really know who the SEC 2-5 is most years because they don't play equal schedules anyways. Alabama missed Florida and SC, A&M missed Georgia and SC, Florida missed Bama and A&M, ect. They'd take whomever they think is the best option.

 

I believe the SEC would be willing to agree to a format that guarantees them 1/4 of the revenue no matter what happens.

 

And you are making my point. With uneven schedules, etc none of this really matters. Its all just for fun, which is why I think the simplest solution 4 conference champs, is the best solution.

[IlliniKrush]

I believe the SEC would be willing to agree to a format that guarantees them 1/4 of the revenue no matter what happens.

 

And you are making my point. With uneven schedules, etc none of this really matters. Its all just for fun, which is why I think the simplest solution 4 conference champs, is the best solution.

[Soxbadger]

It is for fun.

 

There is no empirical way to prove who the best team is, unless every team plays home and home against every team.

[ZoomSlowik]

Thats fine, I enjoy tournament conditions and I see this as a good thing where some more teams are involved. In all of the major sports we watch, the regular seasons matter, whether it is for merely getting into the playoffs at all or for getting seeded into a favorable matchup. These Upper level teams, the Alabamas, Georgias, Oregons are going to want to make sure they have a matchup that is best for them, or even a bye week.

 

Whatever comes in the playoff format will be more appealing to me than the current system, so I am happy either way.

 

The seeding isn't going to matter that much unless byes are involved. Is there really a difference for Alabama if they play Oklahoma or FSU? A top-5 team isn't likely to draw a horrible matchup in the first round, and after that it doesn't really matter because eventually you're going to have to beat someone legit.

 

It's not remotely predictable either because the #7 team might be a better draw than the #10 team and in some cases these teams might be playing after your schedule is done already. Just look at this year: you'd have probably been in better shape as the #14 seed playing #3 Florida than you would be as the #7 seed playing Texas A&M (yes, I'm assuming they'd still use BCS rankings).

[ZoomSlowik]

I believe the SEC would be willing to agree to a format that guarantees them 1/4 of the revenue no matter what happens.

 

And you are making my point. With uneven schedules, etc none of this really matters. Its all just for fun, which is why I think the simplest solution 4 conference champs, is the best solution.

 

I doubt that because they get more than everyone else right now by consistently putting two teams in the BCS. Why would they give that up?

 

 

[Soxbadger]

I doubt that because they get more than everyone else right now by consistently putting two teams in the BCS. Why would they give that up?

 

Because I believe that is the deal they already agreed to?

 

From everything Ive read the Big10/SEC get the same payout from the new tournament regardless of how many teams actually end up in the tournament.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf...ayouts/1762709/

 

The five so-called "power" conferences – the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC – will split approximately 71.5 percent of the annual revenue, after expenses and other payouts. Although it's difficult to estimate because of the escalating contract, on average that figure could approach $250 million a year.

 

My plan of 4 conferences splitting 100%= more money for the SEC. As they currently split 20% (1 of 5) of 71.5% (they share with non-bcs).

 

(edit)

 

Let me clarify 1 point. With the new tournament you can still get a Bowl game (Rose, etc) so the SEC and Big are going to double dip, by getting tournament money and bowl money. Under the 4 team conference championship plan, this would also be available, you would have #2 Pac v #2 Big Rose, #2 SEC v #2 whoever, etc. I am only talking about the additional playoff revenue from the new games.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Soxbadger

[ZoomSlowik]

Yeah, you kinda pointed out the problem with that already. They're already guaranteed another payout because of the Sugar Bowl (much like the other major conferences). They also get $6 million for participating in the playoff, which could be multiplied by two if they keep destroying everyone. Admittedly, that is less than now, where they get $18 million for each team they put in the BCS. They still didn't exactly agree to a straight revenue split (the other problem is there's still 5 "power conferences" at the moment, which screws up your math).

[Soxbadger]

Well my proposal forces the destruction of one of the big 5 conferences. For the simple reason that 5 is a prime number and therefore terrible .

[RockRaines]

Well my proposal forces the destruction of one of the big 5 conferences. For the simple reason that 5 is a prime number and therefore terrible .

The playoff will expand to 8, I have no doubts about that.

[Balta1701]

The playoff will expand to 8, I have no doubts about that.

The thing people said to me a while ago was that, particularly if you're playing at neutral sites, it's going to be hard to expect fanbases to travel for more than 1 game.

 

How are they doing home field/stadium choices for the playoff rounds anyway?

[LittleHurt05]

The thing people said to me a while ago was that, particularly if you're playing at neutral sites, it's going to be hard to expect fanbases to travel for more than 1 game.

 

How are they doing home field/stadium choices for the playoff rounds anyway?

 

Stewart Mandel tweeted that semifinal rotation would be: (I believe the host bowls are still TBD, like the Chick-Fil A, Cotton, Fiesta, etc.)

 

Yr 1: Rose/Sugar

Yr 2:Orange/Host Bowl

Yr 3: Host Bowl/Host

 

He also said that the Rose & Sugar Bowls will stay on January 1, so the other two years, the semifinals will be on December 31.

[RockRaines]

The thing people said to me a while ago was that, particularly if you're playing at neutral sites, it's going to be hard to expect fanbases to travel for more than 1 game.

 

How are they doing home field/stadium choices for the playoff rounds anyway?

Top 4 get a home game then go to neutral sites?

[southsider2k5]

The thing people said to me a while ago was that, particularly if you're playing at neutral sites, it's going to be hard to expect fanbases to travel for more than 1 game.

 

How are they doing home field/stadium choices for the playoff rounds anyway?

 

It hasn't stopped NCAA basketball from filling up football stadiums for the final 4.

[RockRaines]

[RockRaines]

[Brian]

 

/spit take

[IlliniKrush]

It hasn't stopped NCAA basketball from filling up football stadiums for the final 4.

That's the championship round at one spot, and people aren't traveling back and forth. Not the same as having 2 fanbases fill a football stadium 3 different times for an 8 team playoff.

[southsider2k5]

That's the championship round at one spot, and people aren't traveling back and forth. Not the same as having 2 fanbases fill a football stadium 3 different times for an 8 team playoff.

 

The NCAA's do it for three weekends and for 68 teams.

[IlliniKrush]

The NCAA's do it for three weekends and for 68 teams.

Still not the same. At those weekends you've got 4 teams (sometimes 8) filling stadiums that aren't the size of football venues. You don't have fanbases traveling (or expected to travel) in such large numbers until the Final Four.

[zenryan]

The NCAA's do it for three weekends and for 68 teams.

 

 

 

 

The NCAAs are also within reasonable driving distance for the higher up seeds. Plus those games in during the first weekend are in arena's that hold 20k people.

 

 

Cant compare the two at all.