Georgia President calls for CFB playoff

cmoneyr · 01-08-2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by isufbcurt

We can only hope. IMO the bowls are good and unique. Bowls provide rewards and enjoyment for the players whereas playoffs add stress and extend the playing season.

Add stress and extend the season? I guess no college football players want to go onto careers in the NFL. To much stress there, and the playoffs and Super Bowl?? To much to handle.

BvK1126 · 01-08-2008, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by travman23

And this is the response he'll get from the NCAA:

I love the pic, but actually, the NCAA isn't who's standing in the way of a playoff. They'd actually be more than happy to run a playoff system for Division I-A football, but the member schools haven't given them that authority. That's one of the reasons that the NCAA changed the names of Division I-A and I-AA to the "Football Bowl Subdivision" and the "Football Championship Subdivision" -- as a subtle jab to Division I-A for not determining its champion through an NCAA-sanctioned tournament. (If you look at the inscription on the trophy awarded to the NCAA Division I FCS champion, it says ""Division I Football Champions" with no reference to "Subdivision" whatsoever.)

The ones who are blocking a playoff are the Big Ten and Pac-10 commissioners, the Rose Bowl committee, and the university presidents who are beholden to the "good old boys" network that still supports the old bowl structure.

isufbcurt · 01-08-2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Maybe one day you'll convince the majority of us that the Mineke Car Care Bowl, the PappaJohns.com Bowl, and the SmurfTurf Bowl are all good and unique...

Well I did enjoy my stay at the Insight.com minor bowl. I would have rather been there for a week preparing for one fun bowl game than back here in Ames preparing for a game.

Clonefan94 · 01-08-2008, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

I say get rid of the "minor bowls" they're useless, and almost universally horrible games with two teams that nobody outside of their immediate circle cares about. Do away with those and you save a lot of time that can be used for playoff games and still not lengthen the season too much. I'd much rather watch the top 8 or 10 teams or whatever play playoff games then watch Tulsa date rape Bowling Green in a "bowl" game.

Seriously? No way, That is unless you can get 30 or 40 teams into the playoffs. Would Colorado have had a legit shot at the NC this year? No way, but, who would have thought, dare I say, Hampton. Lesser Bowls may not mean squat to outsiders, but, It's what a lot of kids play for during the year. It's what a lot of fans look forward to going to. Even if you went to 16 teams, that's almost 86% of college football teams that aren't going to be playing for anything during the season. Hell, that leaves about 50% of Division one schools that would be never playing for any post season hope.

The only way I would ever like to see a play off is if they kept the current bowl system somewhat intact. It may not sound like much, but, 6-6 with nothing to play for next year sounds like crap to me. 6-6 and getting to even a junk bowl would mean a lot for the Cyclones next year. I agree, lesser bowls become junk to a certain point, year after year of going 6-6, 7-5, but, just as teams can make a case why they should have played in the NC game, I think a lot of teams can make a case for wanting to play in a lesser bowl. Even though you may not have ever played on a team that had a shot a the NC, you could at least graduate knowing you were champion of something. Even if it was the Blue turf Bowl, you got to go somewhere in December and play football. That means a lot for recruiting too. Just like BBAll, you don't have to win it all to show you get to do something in the post season.

isufbcurt · 01-08-2008, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Add stress and extend the season? I guess no college football players want to go onto careers in the NFL. To much stress there, and the playoffs and Super Bowl?? To much to handle.

Like I said it is much more relaxing being in a destination enjoying the place and being rewarded rather than having more weeks added to the schedule.

And just how many guys on a college team get to play in the Pros?

You guys who are playoff supporters answer me this? Would you rather go spend a week in a bowl destination or travel to 3 different places and only spend a day or two there to watch your team?

Just curious because I know I would rather spend 5 days somewhere rather than going somewhere for 2 then packing up and going to the next spot.

And seriously why does everyone dis the Blue Turf so much? I think its pretty cool and from everyone I talked to that played in that Bowl Game they had more fun in Boise than they did in Shreveport.

cmoneyr · 01-08-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Clonefan94

Seriously? No way, That is unless you can get 30 or 40 teams into the playoffs. Would Colorado have had a legit shot at the NC this year? No way, but, who would have thought, dare I say, Hampton. Lesser Bowls may not mean squat to outsiders, but, It's what a lot of kids play for during the year. It's what a lot of fans look forward to going to. Even if you went to 16 teams, that's almost 86% of college football teams that aren't going to be playing for anything during the season. Hell, that leaves about 50% of Division one schools that would be never playing for any post season hope.

The only way I would ever like to see a play off is if they kept the current bowl system somewhat intact. It may not sound like much, but, 6-6 with nothing to play for next year sounds like crap to me. 6-6 and getting to even a junk bowl would mean a lot for the Cyclones next year. I agree, lesser bowls become junk to a certain point, year after year of going 6-6, 7-5, but, just as teams can make a case why they should have played in the NC game, I think a lot of teams can make a case for wanting to play in a lesser bowl. Even though you may not have ever played on a team that had a shot a the NC, you could at least graduate knowing you were champion of something. Even if it was the Blue turf Bowl, you got to go somewhere in December and play football. That means a lot for recruiting too. Just like BBAll, you don't have to win it all to show you get to do something in the post season.

You don't need 30 or 40 teams to determine the best in the country. If, by the end of the season you're not somewhere in the top lets say 15 but probably more like 10-12, you're not the best in the country. I think you could safely get rid of half the bowls and still have enough slots for deserving teams that don't make the playoffs. I don't think a 6-6 record should warrant a bowl game to begin with.

wonkadog · 01-08-2008, 05:15 PM

I in no way condone getting rid of the current "minor" bowls. They are great and you wouldn't be able to tell their sponsors and cities that they are no longer having a bowl. I just want an at least 8-team playoff put in place.

cmoneyr · 01-08-2008, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by isufbcurt

Like I said it is much more relaxing being in a destination enjoying the place and being rewarded rather than having more weeks added to the schedule.

And just how many guys on a college team get to play in the Pros?

You guys who are playoff supporters answer me this? Would you rather go spend a week in a bowl destination or travel to 3 different places and only spend a day or two there to watch your team?

Just curious because I know I would rather spend 5 days somewhere rather than going somewhere for 2 then packing up and going to the next spot.

And seriously why does everyone dis the Blue Turf so much? I think its pretty cool and from everyone I talked to that played in that Bowl Game they had more fun in Boise than they did in Shreveport.

So we should just do away with post-season play entirely then? Maybe one national championship game and thats it, the rest of the guys are too fragile. If you're going to a bowl game to relax and enjoy the beach then I'd say it's fairly obvious it doesn't mean anything to you, if you want a vacation take one.

cmoneyr · 01-08-2008, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

I in no way condone getting rid of the current "minor" bowls. They are great and you wouldn't be able to tell their sponsors and cities that they are no longer having a bowl. I just want an at least 8-team playoff put in place.

I know what you mean, I couldn't call this football season complete until I knew Flordia Atlantic was better than Memphis. And the sponsors for those bowls change constantly so I think they'd get over it. San Diego County Credit Union will have to find a new place to advertise.

Cyclonefanatic.com Poinsettia Bowl anyone?

isufbcurt · 01-08-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

So we should just do away with post-season play entirely then? Maybe one national championship game and thats it, the rest of the guys are too fragile. If you're going to a bowl game to relax and enjoy the beach then I'd say it's fairly obvious it doesn't mean anything to you, if you want a vacation take one.

Well when I did play in 2 bowl games I did treat it like a vacation, when we weren't practicing. I took in the sites and enjoyed the rewards that we earned for a working hard during the season and in the off season. To say the game didn't mean anything to me because I treated the destination like a vacation is retarded. I cared about winning those 2 bowl games as much as I wanted to beat KSU, Nebraska, Iowa or any other team those years. So if in our off-time while on site I wanted to hang out in the pool, go clubbing or site seeing in a place I had never been before I think I EARNED that right.

Had we had the system you want, ISU would have gone 8-3 that year but instead of going to the insight.com bowl we would have been sitting at home and 30,000 ISU fans wouldn't have partied in AZ either.

isuno1fan · 01-08-2008, 05:27 PM

Every year at this time all the same articles come up about needing a better system. In our lifetime, we won't see a playoff I would bet. Might as well get used to it the way it is.

travman23 · 01-08-2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by isufbcurt

Like I said it is much more relaxing being in a destination enjoying the place and being rewarded rather than having more weeks added to the schedule.

And just how many guys on a college team get to play in the Pros?

You guys who are playoff supporters answer me this? Would you rather go spend a week in a bowl destination or travel to 3 different places and only spend a day or two there to watch your team?

Just curious because I know I would rather spend 5 days somewhere rather than going somewhere for 2 then packing up and going to the next spot.

And seriously why does everyone dis the Blue Turf so much? I think its pretty cool and from everyone I talked to that played in that Bowl Game they had more fun in Boise than they did in Shreveport.

You bring up some good points Curt plus the same thing I think might take away from the revenue aspect. How many fans would be willing to go to 1 game like they do now compared to possibly 2 or 3 in consecutive weeks?

Shreveport was a dump and I hope we don't ever have to go there again. I didn't make the trip to Boise but I'm not a fan of bowls that aren't in warm weather.

isufbcurt · 01-08-2008, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by travman23

Shreveport was a dump and I hope we don't ever have to go there again. I didn't make the trip to Boise but I'm not a fan of bowls that aren't in warm weather.

I wish I was on the team for the Boise trip, they got to go snow mobiling, skiing and believe it or not the night life in Boise is pretty amazing (I have a friend who lived in Idaho for college).

cardinal&gold · 01-08-2008, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

I say get rid of the "minor bowls" they're useless, and almost universally horrible games with two teams that nobody outside of their immediate circle cares about. Do away with those and you save a lot of time that can be used for playoff games and still not lengthen the season too much. I'd much rather watch the top 8 or 10 teams or whatever play playoff games then watch Tulsa date rape Bowling Green in a "bowl" game.

If you're getting to get rid of minor bowls, they should at least do away with the made-for-home travesties, like the New Mexico Bowl (made so New Mexico can go to a bowl game) and the Humanitarian Bowl (so Boise can go to a bowl game, which they don't need anymore). I just think that's so asinine.

cmoneyr · 01-08-2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by cardinal&gold

If you're getting to get rid of minor bowls, they should at least do away with the made-for-home travesties, like the New Mexico Bowl (made so New Mexico can go to a bowl game) and the Humanitarian Bowl (so Boise can go to a bowl game, which they don't need anymore). I just think that's so asinine.

I agree.