12-07-2018, 09:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2018, 02:44 PM by TreesAndBirds.)
Big10 discussing eliminating divisions
12-07-2018, 10:53 AM
By the same logic, the North division has been so dominant in the Pac-12 (winning all but one championship), that I wonder if the same logic can apply to the Pac-12.
BC
BC
By the same logic, the North division has been so dominant in the Pac-12 (winning all but one championship), that I wonder if the same logic can apply to the Pac-12.
BC
BC
neither the SEC nor ACC seem to have much divisional balance in their championship games in the last decade
the SEC West has won 9 of the last 10 SEC championships
the ACC Atlantic has won the last 8 of the last 10 ACC championship games (and those 8 wins would all be in the last 8 championship games)
the SEC West has won 9 of the last 10 SEC championships
the ACC Atlantic has won the last 8 of the last 10 ACC championship games (and those 8 wins would all be in the last 8 championship games)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
neither the SEC nor ACC seem to have much divisional balance in their championship games in the last decade
the SEC West has won 9 of the last 10 SEC championships
the ACC Atlantic has won the last 8 of the last 10 ACC championship games (and those 8 wins would all be in the last 8 championship games)
the SEC West has won 9 of the last 10 SEC championships
the ACC Atlantic has won the last 8 of the last 10 ACC championship games (and those 8 wins would all be in the last 8 championship games)
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
12-07-2018, 01:30 PM
(12-07-2018, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: By the same logic, the North division has been so dominant in the Pac-12 (winning all but one championship), that I wonder if the same logic can apply to the Pac-12.
BC
It does. We've boxed ourselves into playing the 2nd or 3rd toughest conference schedule every year.
(12-07-2018, 10:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: By the same logic, the North division has been so dominant in the Pac-12 (winning all but one championship), that I wonder if the same logic can apply to the Pac-12.
BC
It does. We've boxed ourselves into playing the 2nd or 3rd toughest conference schedule every year.
12-07-2018, 02:33 PM
I think it's a smart play for the Big Ten now that the rules have been relaxed to allow a championship game for the Big 12 despite the lack of divisions.
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
I think it's a smart play for the Big Ten now that the rules have been relaxed to allow a championship game for the Big 12 despite the lack of divisions.
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
(12-07-2018, 02:33 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote: I think it's a smart play for the Big Ten now that the rules have been relaxed to allow a championship game for the Big 12 despite the lack of divisions.
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
of course even the current system can have a next week rematch like ours in 2012 vs UCLA
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(12-07-2018, 02:33 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote: I think it's a smart play for the Big Ten now that the rules have been relaxed to allow a championship game for the Big 12 despite the lack of divisions.
Divisions are a relatively recent innovation in college football. They're not sacred. I'm all for the best two teams in a conference to play in a championship game. (It creates some unavoidable scheduling headaches of course; this year, it would've meant a UW-WSU rematch a week after the Apple Cup. A future year could see Stanford-Cal the week after Big Game or USC-UCLA the week after whatever they call their rivalry game (not sure if "the Battle for L.A." is semi-official or just something TV networks decided on, but it sounds like it should star Snake Plissken).)
Is the risk of that something to be avoided at all costs, or is it an acceptable risk in order to ensure the best possible championship game? It would also, of course, mean we'd get more games against Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado on average, and fewer games against Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, and Washington State. I'm... fine with that?
of course even the current system can have a next week rematch like ours in 2012 vs UCLA
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
12-07-2018, 02:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2018, 02:44 PM by ColoradoTree.)
(12-07-2018, 02:37 PM)82lsju Wrote: of course even with the current system we beat UCLA on consecutive weekends in 2012
Indeed, though that was an entirely avoidable scheduling hiccup that can be fixed with a simple rule: don't schedule games between teams in the opposing division on the last week of the season. That's easy to fix, but I don't think college football fans or decisionmakers are going to be willing to have a similar rule about rivalry games.
(This post was last modified: 12-07-2018, 02:44 PM by ColoradoTree.)
(12-07-2018, 02:37 PM)82lsju Wrote: of course even with the current system we beat UCLA on consecutive weekends in 2012
Indeed, though that was an entirely avoidable scheduling hiccup that can be fixed with a simple rule: don't schedule games between teams in the opposing division on the last week of the season. That's easy to fix, but I don't think college football fans or decisionmakers are going to be willing to have a similar rule about rivalry games.
(12-07-2018, 02:39 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote:(12-07-2018, 02:37 PM)82lsju Wrote: of course even with the current system we beat UCLA on consecutive weekends in 2012
Indeed, though that was an entirely avoidable scheduling hiccup that can be fixed with a simple rule: don't schedule games between teams in the opposing division on the last week of the season. That's easy to fix, but I don't think college football fans or decision makers are going to be willing to have a similar rule about rivalry games.
of course Big Game is not our last game of the season (barring a postponement) so we've "solved" that problem for our rivalry game......
and given WSU-UW and OSU-UO are the last weekend of the season we don't have much choice but to play someone from the south (which seems to be UCLA due to the scheduling ND issue for us and USC) in even years or a non-conference game (ND) in odd years
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(12-07-2018, 02:39 PM)ColoradoTree Wrote:(12-07-2018, 02:37 PM)82lsju Wrote: of course even with the current system we beat UCLA on consecutive weekends in 2012
Indeed, though that was an entirely avoidable scheduling hiccup that can be fixed with a simple rule: don't schedule games between teams in the opposing division on the last week of the season. That's easy to fix, but I don't think college football fans or decision makers are going to be willing to have a similar rule about rivalry games.
of course Big Game is not our last game of the season (barring a postponement) so we've "solved" that problem for our rivalry game......
and given WSU-UW and OSU-UO are the last weekend of the season we don't have much choice but to play someone from the south (which seems to be UCLA due to the scheduling ND issue for us and USC) in even years or a non-conference game (ND) in odd years
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
12-07-2018, 04:50 PM
What?!? No more Legends and Leaders?
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
What?!? No more Legends and Leaders?
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
12-10-2018, 07:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 07:12 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Just get rid of the conference championship games altogether and add one more round of playoffs so we can have 8 teams in playoff.
Take the Power 5 regular season champs, three at large (with no more than two from same conference), unless the highest ranked Group of 5 team is in the Top 12 of the rankings, in which case Group of 5 gets in, with two at-large.
Final Rankings in 2018 would have been:
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Clemson (ACC)
#3 Notre Dame (at-large)
#4 Georgia (at-large)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12)
#6 Ohio State (B1G)
#7 UCF (G 5)
#8 Washington (Pac-12)
Instead of the conference championship games Dec. 1, would have had Quarterfinals:
#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
Most arguments right now stem around Georgia and Oklahoma. In this arrangement they play each other, so nobody can gripe about one of them being left out of the playoff.
All the worry about "we would just have controversy over #8/9 like #4/5," rings hollow to me. I always find each year there are no more than 8 teams really deserving of playing for a championship in FBS college football. This year once again that proves to be the case. Nobody would be crying about Michigan, Florida, LSU, WSU, or PSU not getting in.
And we'd finally if not have an even playing field in terms of number of conference games played between all the conferences being the same, with same number of road games, have a system where it wouldn't matter. Each conference can submit a champion and be done with it. If there is a tie, conference can use its own tie breaker, or use the CFP rankings to decide champion.
Take the Power 5 regular season champs, three at large (with no more than two from same conference), unless the highest ranked Group of 5 team is in the Top 12 of the rankings, in which case Group of 5 gets in, with two at-large.
Final Rankings in 2018 would have been:
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Clemson (ACC)
#3 Notre Dame (at-large)
#4 Georgia (at-large)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12)
#6 Ohio State (B1G)
#7 UCF (G 5)
#8 Washington (Pac-12)
Instead of the conference championship games Dec. 1, would have had Quarterfinals:
#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
Most arguments right now stem around Georgia and Oklahoma. In this arrangement they play each other, so nobody can gripe about one of them being left out of the playoff.
All the worry about "we would just have controversy over #8/9 like #4/5," rings hollow to me. I always find each year there are no more than 8 teams really deserving of playing for a championship in FBS college football. This year once again that proves to be the case. Nobody would be crying about Michigan, Florida, LSU, WSU, or PSU not getting in.
And we'd finally if not have an even playing field in terms of number of conference games played between all the conferences being the same, with same number of road games, have a system where it wouldn't matter. Each conference can submit a champion and be done with it. If there is a tie, conference can use its own tie breaker, or use the CFP rankings to decide champion.
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2018, 07:12 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Just get rid of the conference championship games altogether and add one more round of playoffs so we can have 8 teams in playoff.
Take the Power 5 regular season champs, three at large (with no more than two from same conference), unless the highest ranked Group of 5 team is in the Top 12 of the rankings, in which case Group of 5 gets in, with two at-large.
Final Rankings in 2018 would have been:
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Clemson (ACC)
#3 Notre Dame (at-large)
#4 Georgia (at-large)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12)
#6 Ohio State (B1G)
#7 UCF (G 5)
#8 Washington (Pac-12)
Instead of the conference championship games Dec. 1, would have had Quarterfinals:
#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
Most arguments right now stem around Georgia and Oklahoma. In this arrangement they play each other, so nobody can gripe about one of them being left out of the playoff.
All the worry about "we would just have controversy over #8/9 like #4/5," rings hollow to me. I always find each year there are no more than 8 teams really deserving of playing for a championship in FBS college football. This year once again that proves to be the case. Nobody would be crying about Michigan, Florida, LSU, WSU, or PSU not getting in.
And we'd finally if not have an even playing field in terms of number of conference games played between all the conferences being the same, with same number of road games, have a system where it wouldn't matter. Each conference can submit a champion and be done with it. If there is a tie, conference can use its own tie breaker, or use the CFP rankings to decide champion.
Take the Power 5 regular season champs, three at large (with no more than two from same conference), unless the highest ranked Group of 5 team is in the Top 12 of the rankings, in which case Group of 5 gets in, with two at-large.
Final Rankings in 2018 would have been:
#1 Alabama (SEC)
#2 Clemson (ACC)
#3 Notre Dame (at-large)
#4 Georgia (at-large)
#5 Oklahoma (Big 12)
#6 Ohio State (B1G)
#7 UCF (G 5)
#8 Washington (Pac-12)
Instead of the conference championship games Dec. 1, would have had Quarterfinals:
#8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
Most arguments right now stem around Georgia and Oklahoma. In this arrangement they play each other, so nobody can gripe about one of them being left out of the playoff.
All the worry about "we would just have controversy over #8/9 like #4/5," rings hollow to me. I always find each year there are no more than 8 teams really deserving of playing for a championship in FBS college football. This year once again that proves to be the case. Nobody would be crying about Michigan, Florida, LSU, WSU, or PSU not getting in.
And we'd finally if not have an even playing field in terms of number of conference games played between all the conferences being the same, with same number of road games, have a system where it wouldn't matter. Each conference can submit a champion and be done with it. If there is a tie, conference can use its own tie breaker, or use the CFP rankings to decide champion.
12-10-2018, 08:00 AM
(12-10-2018, 07:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: #8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
I totally agree with your argument in spirit, but I'm not sure the most compelling point is that the conference championship games have sucked vis-a-vis the playoff games. Alabama-Georgia was a classic this year, and the Oklahoma-Texas game was also very competitive until late in the 4th. Last season, Wisconsin-OSU and Stanford-USC were both tight, down to the wire games. Etc. Yes, you get some blowouts (Georgia over Auburn, OSU over Northwestern, Clemson over Miami & Pitt), but the same thing happens in the semis (Bama stomped Clemson last year and Washington the year before, and Clemson shut out OSU two seasons ago). So 3/4 of the playoff games the last two seasons have been at least as terrible as any of the conference championships.
The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.
Provided the money from those games can offset the conference championship games for each of the conferences, there's no argument against it. In my mind, the hurdle is making sure the conferences don't lose money in the switch.
(12-10-2018, 07:11 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: #8 Washington at #1 Alabama
#7 UCF at #2 Clemson
#6 Ohio State at #3 Notre Dame
#5 Oklahoma at #4 Georgia
Nobody can tell me these games wouldn't have far more interest for the entire universe of fans than the mostly terrible conference championship games we see annually.
I totally agree with your argument in spirit, but I'm not sure the most compelling point is that the conference championship games have sucked vis-a-vis the playoff games. Alabama-Georgia was a classic this year, and the Oklahoma-Texas game was also very competitive until late in the 4th. Last season, Wisconsin-OSU and Stanford-USC were both tight, down to the wire games. Etc. Yes, you get some blowouts (Georgia over Auburn, OSU over Northwestern, Clemson over Miami & Pitt), but the same thing happens in the semis (Bama stomped Clemson last year and Washington the year before, and Clemson shut out OSU two seasons ago). So 3/4 of the playoff games the last two seasons have been at least as terrible as any of the conference championships.
The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.
Provided the money from those games can offset the conference championship games for each of the conferences, there's no argument against it. In my mind, the hurdle is making sure the conferences don't lose money in the switch.
12-10-2018, 09:42 AM
(12-10-2018, 08:00 AM)2006alum Wrote: The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.
No, it wouldn't. It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship. While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games. In fact, that is to a degree an argument against expanding the playoff. The more games in a row a team has to play to win a championship, the more unlikely it is that the "best team" will make it through without being upset along the way. The "best team" should always have the greatest probability of winning, but at the end of the day, the larger the field is, the higher probability that "the field" wins the championship. I believe there was such a discussion related to the disappointment of our women's soccer team.
The problem that an expanded playoffs would "solve" is the idea that participation in the play-off isn't determined purely on the field and has a subjective component of committee selections. That is, to some extent, a fair gripe, and I think the idea that a team may not purely hold its destiny its own hands is off-putting to many. However, this being sports, fans will find something else to grip about, whether it is seeding, or which teams outside the conference champions were included (you can't get away from a subjective determination here). Then there is also the possibility that a mediocre team will sneak into the playoffs by winning in a down conference (especially if there are conference championship games). I remember when there was grousing that a Big East team had to be included in a BCS bowl even though none of them were ranked in the top-25.
There is no perfect system; all of these things involve trade-offs. The bottom line is that the smaller the playoff field, the greater the chance that the "best team" is left off the playoff roster; the larger the playoff field the greater the chance that the "best team" is upset during the playoffs. The more "objective" the system, the higher the likelihood that through flukish means a worse team meets the criteria to enter the playoffs without actually being the better team; the more "subjective" the system, the higher he likelihood that bias creeps in. The "ideal" system is a question about what trade-offs we are willing to take.
Last thing... lost in all of these discussions is the physical toll that the ever-lengthening season takes on players. I would like to see that reversed, and see us play fewer, not more games. If the playoffs are expanded, then I agree, do away with the conference championship game, or get rid of a game in the regular season. There was a time when players played at most 12 games (11 in BobK's and TC's days); now some play 12 regular season games, a conference championship, and two playoff games. That's too much for players that are not paid.
BC
(12-10-2018, 08:00 AM)2006alum Wrote: The strongest argument, in my mind, is simply that the conference championships rarely definitively resolve who is the best team (see last season where Bama wasn't even in the game and then went on to win the championship, and the year before, where OSU was top 4 even though they didn't play in the Big Ten Game). And if they don't actually help resolve the best teams, why not let a 8-game playoff do it, which *would* resolve this question. Having two at-larges takes care of the years when Bama or OSU don't win their conference but are nonetheless a top team, and also addresses the UCF problem. I entirely agree with you that that's a better solution.
No, it wouldn't. It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship. While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games. In fact, that is to a degree an argument against expanding the playoff. The more games in a row a team has to play to win a championship, the more unlikely it is that the "best team" will make it through without being upset along the way. The "best team" should always have the greatest probability of winning, but at the end of the day, the larger the field is, the higher probability that "the field" wins the championship. I believe there was such a discussion related to the disappointment of our women's soccer team.
The problem that an expanded playoffs would "solve" is the idea that participation in the play-off isn't determined purely on the field and has a subjective component of committee selections. That is, to some extent, a fair gripe, and I think the idea that a team may not purely hold its destiny its own hands is off-putting to many. However, this being sports, fans will find something else to grip about, whether it is seeding, or which teams outside the conference champions were included (you can't get away from a subjective determination here). Then there is also the possibility that a mediocre team will sneak into the playoffs by winning in a down conference (especially if there are conference championship games). I remember when there was grousing that a Big East team had to be included in a BCS bowl even though none of them were ranked in the top-25.
There is no perfect system; all of these things involve trade-offs. The bottom line is that the smaller the playoff field, the greater the chance that the "best team" is left off the playoff roster; the larger the playoff field the greater the chance that the "best team" is upset during the playoffs. The more "objective" the system, the higher the likelihood that through flukish means a worse team meets the criteria to enter the playoffs without actually being the better team; the more "subjective" the system, the higher he likelihood that bias creeps in. The "ideal" system is a question about what trade-offs we are willing to take.
Last thing... lost in all of these discussions is the physical toll that the ever-lengthening season takes on players. I would like to see that reversed, and see us play fewer, not more games. If the playoffs are expanded, then I agree, do away with the conference championship game, or get rid of a game in the regular season. There was a time when players played at most 12 games (11 in BobK's and TC's days); now some play 12 regular season games, a conference championship, and two playoff games. That's too much for players that are not paid.
BC
(12-10-2018, 09:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote: No, it wouldn't. It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship. While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games.
Part of this might be a disagreement about what it means to be the "best" team. In my mind, if you beat 3 top ten teams three weeks in a row on the way to a national championship, you're de facto the best team. That is, in Outsider's hypothetical matchup, if the Huskies beat Bama, Georgia, and Clemson on the way to a national title, in what universe are they not the "best" team? To me, soccer's problem is that relatively few scoring moments decide games as compared to football - in a game that ends 56-48, either team had many opportunities to stop the other and didn't. In a soccer game that ends 1-0 off a random deflected corner kick, there's a real sense that a random 30 seconds of the 90 minutes decided the entire outcome. That's far less often the case in football.
But yes- agree that they shouldn't add more games. And if anything, this solution also improves that: removing the conference championship and adding an elite 8 round would make the losing teams' seasons shorter, since the playoff game would substitute for their bowl game and they wouldn't have had to play a conference championship game.
(12-10-2018, 09:42 AM)BostonCard Wrote: No, it wouldn't. It would simply resolve who won three games in a row to win a championship. While (barring unusual match-up issues) the better team will win a game at a neutral site more often than not, that doesn't mean that the better team will always win three consecutive games.
Part of this might be a disagreement about what it means to be the "best" team. In my mind, if you beat 3 top ten teams three weeks in a row on the way to a national championship, you're de facto the best team. That is, in Outsider's hypothetical matchup, if the Huskies beat Bama, Georgia, and Clemson on the way to a national title, in what universe are they not the "best" team? To me, soccer's problem is that relatively few scoring moments decide games as compared to football - in a game that ends 56-48, either team had many opportunities to stop the other and didn't. In a soccer game that ends 1-0 off a random deflected corner kick, there's a real sense that a random 30 seconds of the 90 minutes decided the entire outcome. That's far less often the case in football.
But yes- agree that they shouldn't add more games. And if anything, this solution also improves that: removing the conference championship and adding an elite 8 round would make the losing teams' seasons shorter, since the playoff game would substitute for their bowl game and they wouldn't have had to play a conference championship game.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »