The CardBoard
Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade (/thread-15151.html)


Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - lex24 - 12-03-2017

Do conferences matter or not? Washington gets a New Year’s six bowl. Yet they lost the division to Stanford. Sure, Washington has a better overall record. Helped by the fact that they didn’t have to play SC and they had a creampuff non-league schedule.

So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

Of the five power five conference championship losers – the two not in are of course Stanford and TCU. Miami  is in – despite crawling to the finish line. But at least they played in their conference championship game. And of course it’s all about money anyway. Nothing else really matters. The players certainly don’t. The fans certainly don’t. Money talks. The rest of it is irrelevant

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Stymie - 12-03-2017

You are so right, Lex

NCAAF (and NCAABB) are corrupt and devoted to the "Show me the money!" race to the intellectual bottom.  It is only a matter of time that Stanford (and Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt, Cal-Berkeley, etc.) will wake up and rise to Ivy League/U. Chicago standards.

IMVHO

Stymie

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - jacketree - 12-03-2017

Pretty sure the Ivy League takes their share of NCAA tournament money without complaint.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Stymie - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 01:59 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Pretty sure the Ivy League takes their share of NCAA tournament money without complaint.

Whatever that share is, it is relatively minuscule,  Not?????...........

PS--sorry for not including Georgia Tech in the previous post.  They are a much better institution than just being UGA's butt boy.

s

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - qwerty49 - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 01:31 PM)lex24 link Wrote:So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

I agree with your sentiments but your math doesn't work out.

10 teams play for a conference championship.  4 of them get to the CFP.  That leaves 6 for the NY6 bowls.  So somewhere we need to find another 6 --- from teams that did not play in a conference championship.  I guess you throw in a ranked ND and the small conference champions?  Not sure you can still fill 16 slots.

Maybe just take the top 16 and then it becomes a matter of seeding and political jockeying among the bowls.



Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - jacketree - 12-03-2017

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/finances/distributions

Looks like 60% of revenue is returned to member institutions, with additional rewards for better performance. Haven’t done the math to see if it is minuscule in the grand scheme of Ivy finances. They do rake in donations not tied to athletics.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - French Rage - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 02:17 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18275.msg216796#msg216796 date=1512333118]

So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

I agree with your sentiments but your math doesn't work out.

10 teams play for a conference championship.  4 of them get to the CFP.  That leaves 6 for the NY6 bowls.  So somewhere we need to find another 6 --- from teams that did not play in a conference championship.  I guess you throw in a ranked ND and the small conference champions?  Not sure you can still fill 16 slots.

Maybe just take the top 16 and then it becomes a matter of seeding and political jockeying among the bowls.
[/quote]

Those 4 that get in go to two of the NY6 though.  So there's two teams.

Maybe it should be rephrased to "all P5 teams in their CCG should get into NY6 bowls".  On the one hand, one division of a P5 conference may be weak and that may lead to a weak team getting in.  Granted, any teams not in their CCG that aren't good enough to fill those remaining slows didn't do what they needed to.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - lex24 - 12-03-2017

I think we both need work on our math.  6 games equals 12 spots. 4 to NCS. That leaves 8.  There are 5 conference championships. 10 teams. That leaves 6 for 8 spots.  Fill those with the teams from the CCG,s - the 5 losers and the one that doesn’t get in. 2 left. 1 for the best non power 5.  1 at large.

Make the conference seasons MATTER


(12-03-2017, 02:17 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18275.msg216796#msg216796 date=1512333118]

So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

I agree with your sentiments but your math doesn't work out.

10 teams play for a conference championship.  4 of them get to the CFP.  That leaves 6 for the NY6 bowls.  So somewhere we need to find another 6 --- from teams that did not play in a conference championship.  I guess you throw in a ranked ND and the small conference champions?  Not sure you can still fill 16 slots.

Maybe just take the top 16 and then it becomes a matter of seeding and political jockeying among the bowls.
[/quote]

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - qwerty49 - 12-03-2017

(12-03-2017, 05:12 PM)French Rage link Wrote:[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18275.msg216830#msg216830 date=1512335836]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18275.msg216796#msg216796 date=1512333118]

So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

I agree with your sentiments but your math doesn't work out.

10 teams play for a conference championship.  4 of them get to the CFP.  That leaves 6 for the NY6 bowls.  So somewhere we need to find another 6 --- from teams that did not play in a conference championship.  I guess you throw in a ranked ND and the small conference champions?  Not sure you can still fill 16 slots.

Maybe just take the top 16 and then it becomes a matter of seeding and political jockeying among the bowls.
[/quote]

Those 4 that get in go to two of the NY6 though.  So there's two teams.

Maybe it should be rephrased to "all P5 teams in their CCG should get into NY6 bowls".  On the one hand, one division of a P5 conference may be weak and that may lead to a weak team getting in.  Granted, any teams not in their CCG that aren't good enough to fill those remaining slows didn't do what they needed to.
[/quote]

Right you are!  We're still short two teams, but I suppose that could be overcome.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - qwerty49 - 12-03-2017

Makes sense to me!

(12-03-2017, 05:29 PM)lex24 link Wrote:I think we both need work on our math.  6 games equals 12 spots. 4 to NCS. That leaves 8.  There are 5 conference championships. 10 teams. That leaves 6 for 8 spots.  Fill those with the teams from the CCG,s - the 5 losers and the one that doesn’t get in. 2 left. 1 for the best non power 5.  1 at large.

Make the conference seasons MATTER


[quote author=qwerty49 link=topic=18275.msg216830#msg216830 date=1512335836]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=18275.msg216796#msg216796 date=1512333118]

So, just like I have a bright line rule for the final four – conference champions only – I have the same for the New Year’s six. If you don’t play for a conference championship you don’t get in.

I agree with your sentiments but your math doesn't work out.

10 teams play for a conference championship.  4 of them get to the CFP.  That leaves 6 for the NY6 bowls.  So somewhere we need to find another 6 --- from teams that did not play in a conference championship.  I guess you throw in a ranked ND and the small conference champions?  Not sure you can still fill 16 slots.

Maybe just take the top 16 and then it becomes a matter of seeding and political jockeying among the bowls.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - ColoradoTree - 12-04-2017

I mean, we've lost four games.  Not sure we should feel entitled to a NY6 berth.  This sort of thing--a division runner-up making the NY6 while the conference championship game loser doesn't--happens all the time, and I'm not sure why it's controversial this year.  We won more conference games than Washington did, so we rightfully won the North.  But the committee folks are looking at different set of criteria. 

I dunno.  It's just hard for me to look at our season in retrospective and muster up much outrage that we didn't make the Cotton Bowl against Ohio State or the Fiesta against Penn State.  We could have, and I would have been excited.  But I certainly don't feel like we've had anything stolen from us here. 

And really, the conference seasons did matter.  They mattered for determining the participants in each conference championship game.  Our reward was a chance to play for a championship.  We lost that game, so I guess I just don't see the harm.  Making a major bowl game is a neat thing, but if it's not the playoff or the Rose, then all I really care about is playing a good team in a neat place, in case I decide to make a vacation out of it.  And those boxes are checked here.  This isn't like getting relegated to the Seattle Bowl in 2001 when we were 9th in the BCS!

The much bigger problem, in my view, is that Alabama got the #4 spot, leaving two 2-loss Power 5 conference champions at home.  The committee has talked for years about the importance of strength of schedule and overall resume, with a focus on good wins rather than on the number of losses.  And yes, Ohio State took a bad loss to Iowa, but it also had a much stronger set of wins than Alabama did.  (I agreed with most pundits that USC's resume wasn't as deserving.)  But by picking Alabama, they confirmed that, much like a particular trophy awarded in New York, the rationale used to select the top 4 teams is awfully flexible, with conference champions taking precedence over teams winning the eye test one year, and the reverse happening the next. 

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Treebound - 12-04-2017

I can't get too upset by our Bowl invitation.  I don't like the CFP process and like others in a different thread, I think that an 8 team playoff makes the most sense.  All five conference champions would be in plus three chosen by the committee.  Drop one cream-puff game in exchange.

My disappointment three days after the game is that we couldn't get a play into the huddle in time with a first and goal from the three yard line.  To me, that is inexcusable at this point in the season, especially given that 90% of us knew what play was going to be called.  It was there for the taking....end rant.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - teejers1 - 12-04-2017

My disappointment was that on fourth and one Stanford DIDN'T get a delay-of-game penalty, which would have forced the FG try.

Instead, we "rushed" into the play call we all knew was coming.  And surprise, surprise, the SC D stuffed it.

Of course, the D giving up too many big gainers was the overall game killer.  And the breakdowns were from some of Stanford's best defenders, which was surprising. 

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Mick - 12-04-2017

Have to agree.  As a semi-interested bystander, it seems to me that we get some fairly basic stuff wrong and it turns out to be very counterproductive.

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - BostonCard - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 09:47 AM)ColoradoTree link Wrote:We won more conference games than Washington did, so we rightfully won the North.  But the committee folks are looking at different set of criteria. 

Actually, both Washington and Stanford went 7-2 in conference; Stanford got the nod based on the head-to-head results.

BC

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - North Woods - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 01:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:Have to agree.  As a semi-interested bystander, it seems to me that we get some fairly basic stuff wrong and it turns out to be very counterproductive.

Mick, it seems that after more than 5,000 posts here you have graduated beyond "semi-interested" level!

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - qwerty49 - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 01:34 PM)Mick link Wrote:Have to agree.  As a semi-interested bystander, it seems to me that we get some fairly basic stuff wrong and it turns out to be very counterproductive.

The DOG penalties seem to always happen after we make a big gain.  On one hand, maybe we need to be coached to move our butts down the field a bit more quickly.  OTOH, our brain trust needs to be ready with a play faster.  Maybe there's confusion about substitutions in those situations.  But how hard is it to have, say, 3 "strike while the iron is hot" plays in the hip pocket and choose one of them in the few seconds it takes the offense to trundle down the field to the new LOS?

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Mick - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 03:22 PM)North Woods link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18275.msg217016#msg217016 date=1512419649]
Have to agree.  As a semi-interested bystander, it seems to me that we get some fairly basic stuff wrong and it turns out to be very counterproductive.

Mick, it seems that after more than 5,000 posts here you have graduated beyond "semi-interested" level!
[/quote]

I've graduated to "largely interested" I suppose...  :D

Re: Time for NCAA to rethink this charade - Treebound - 12-04-2017

(12-04-2017, 03:56 PM)qwerty49 link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=18275.msg217016#msg217016 date=1512419649]
Have to agree.  As a semi-interested bystander, it seems to me that we get some fairly basic stuff wrong and it turns out to be very counterproductive.

The DOG penalties seem to always happen after we make a big gain.  On one hand, maybe we need to be coached to move our butts down the field a bit more quickly.  OTOH, our brain trust needs to be ready with a play faster.  Maybe there's confusion about substitutions in those situations.  But how hard is it to have, say, 3 "strike while the iron is hot" plays in the hip pocket and choose one of them in the few seconds it takes the offense to trundle down the field to the new LOS?
[/quote]

Completely agree with this approach Q, and I put this ALL on the staff.  It has happened way too many times over the past few years. We are better and should be smarter than this.  To me, this was the key turning point in the game.  We have a big gain and we are on the 3 yard line and should be able to pound the ball in over three plays.  The momentum and the lead would have shifted to Stanford.  But NO, we stop all momentum with an unforced error DOG penalty and then proceed to revisit the final drive of the MSU Rose Bowl.  We gifted the momentum right back to SC and their offense, inspired by their defenses goal line stand, drives 99 yards for the winning score.  I've seen this movie before and the ending stinks.  Sorry, but I put this one up there in the major mistakes category for our staff.Â