GTTerrific
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 4,024
You brought up what I was going to say when reading through this thread.
B.C. is a good fit due to not only where they are on the east coast, but also because of a big tv market in Boston.
B.C. the red headed stepchild...
- Thread starter GeorgiaTechFan
- Start date
You brought up what I was going to say when reading through this thread.
B.C. is a good fit due to not only where they are on the east coast, but also because of a big tv market in Boston.
samsgt02
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 3,283
At least it was decided on the field, and not by what you THINK would happen.
I agree, except I'd say that WVU would have natural rivalries with VT and Maryland (based on history) and probably UVA (based on proximity and the whole culture clash thing ;) )
As far as WVU not being on the Atlantic Coast, neither are most all other ACC schools. (Heck, after we expanded to 11 initially a few years ago, there was some brief discussion about possibly going after ND as the 12th school, so we know that being in a state on the coast is not a necessary requirement.) West Virginia is tightly contiguous with Virginia and Maryland, and WVU shares a common (old) Southern conference history with most of the other current ACC schools.
At any rate, BC is a good school academically and are competitive athletically (even if they don't have any natural border rivals with ACC schools) and I don't see them leaving unless it ever got to the point where they did feel like the 'red headed (yankee) step child' and sought to realign with other northeastern schools.
M
melvoin
Guest
Boston cares about Boston College about as much as New York cares about Rutgers. Their bringing the "Boston TV Market" is a crock.
They have a miniscule fanbase and stadium, and average football and basketball programs.
I don't see what they supply other than a 12th warm body.
That being said, Clemson will choke once again, and BC will threepeat in the Atlantic this year.
They have a miniscule fanbase and stadium, and average football and basketball programs.
I don't see what they supply other than a 12th warm body.
That being said, Clemson will choke once again, and BC will threepeat in the Atlantic this year.
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
But this is EXACTLY my point...the whole argument about having playoffs is that a lot of people THINK something different should have happened.
What DID happen on the field was that the #1 team played the #2 team as decided by THREE polls.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 10,702
Well, I could see BC making a different decision down the road.
Northeastern football has really come into its own (even with Syracuse in an unusual slide). You now have Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn all playing each other and gaining interest among people in that region of the country. Meanwhile, BC is off playing the inbred rednecks down in Clemson and Tallahassee (TIC). It really makes much more sense today than it did 5 years ago for them to be in the Big East, thanks to the rising fortunes of big boy football at Rutgers and UConn, and the continuing presence of [traditional] power Syracuse.....
Northeastern football has really come into its own (even with Syracuse in an unusual slide). You now have Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn all playing each other and gaining interest among people in that region of the country. Meanwhile, BC is off playing the inbred rednecks down in Clemson and Tallahassee (TIC). It really makes much more sense today than it did 5 years ago for them to be in the Big East, thanks to the rising fortunes of big boy football at Rutgers and UConn, and the continuing presence of [traditional] power Syracuse.....
Right, and the play off would allow for a true champion when there are multiple teams (ie more than two) with undefeated (or one-loss seasons), so that certain teams that worked really hard during the regular season wouldn't be spurned just because they weren't in the right conference or didn't have the perceived big-school, name-brand recognition.
samsgt02
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 3,283
What's your QUESTION?
I basically agree, and for this reason I never really bought the whole "BC-would-bring-the-Boston-market" argument.
One could conversely argue that a larger school like WVU, with a rabid FB following, would have a larger alumni base interested in watching their games (than BC fans) and thus would bring more mid-Atlantic/northeastern TV viewers to the ACC in that way.
GTSaxophone
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,737
The game in question was a rivalry game, and I think that both sides wanted it pretty badly. Also, in the NFL, you have byes to play for, so an 11-3 team would probably need to win out to have a chance to gain one of those byes, unless there is a rare instance where all the other teams can't finish better than 10-6.
Also, you never addressed my point: The regular season is NOT currently the end all that people make it out to be now. As it stands, if Boise, TCU, Iowa, Cincy, and Fla/Bama go undefeated, THREE OF THOSE TEAMS WILL NOT GET A SNIFF AT A TITLE. How can you say that the regular season means everything, when doing all that is asked of you in the regular season still doesn't allow you to compete for a championship?
As a college football fan, I value teams competing for a title over the fleeting excitement of one game. I think a playoff setup would absolutely be a Godsend to Tech, as our offense gets better over the course of the year. Also, the structure of college football already lends itself to preventing a situation where teams can afford to shut it down at the end of the season.
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
Ok...so we both agree that things settled on the field are better than hypothetical questions, but we are disagreeing on how to choose those two teams?
In that case I still contend that a game featuring a #1 vs a #2 as selected by three polling systems should be just as good if not better than a playoff system.
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
The regular season puts you in the opportunity to play for the MNC it does not guarantee it. Same as in a playoff system. The difference is that in the playoff system, losing a game is not as devastating, hence it does not have the same value and can NOT have the same value.
GTSaxophone
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,737
I agree with the bolded statement, and it is exactly why I hate the when people start talking about the regular season being devalued, or it being the greatest thing known to man. It's not. The regular season should put you in position to play for a title. That's what playoffs are for. The regular season seperates/identifies the best teams, the playoffs pits them against each other to see who is the best of the best. The issue comes down to whether the system we have now does this well enough, or if a playoff would do it better. I support the latter, obviously.
You're making it out as if with a playoff system would have three and four loss teams throughout it, when this is not the case. I think most people who favor a playoff support having it exclusive only to conference champions, with few, if any, bids for non champions. In this case, the most losses you would see a team with is probably 2, unless an upset occurs in a conference championship game, or there is a mediocre conference, where the champion has 3 losses.
Therefore, losses are still just as devastating in a playoff format, especially in conference play. The worst case scenario would be a 2009 Virginia, who had an atrocious start to the season, but still had a chance to win the conference. However, they would have to win the conference for any hope at the playoffs, because there would be no way they would get an at large bid.
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
I don't think a playoff is the answer for those teams that go undefeated and don't get a shot. I think not scheduling creampuffs is the solution.
If you aren't in a BCS conference do your DAMNEDST to get all of your OOC games against BCS foes, the bigger the better.
If you are in a marginal BCS conference, make sure not to have any D1-AA schools on the schedule and have some tough OOC foes.
These teams don't schedule as hard as they could, and then whine when after beating all the cupcakes on their schedule they don't have a shot.
Imagine if GT had played a quality BCS opponent instead of JSU where we'd be in the rankings? Probably at least 3~4 spots higher, which would make a lot of difference at the end of the season.
It is not the system that is keeping teams out of the BCS NC game...it is the scheduling of the other teams that don't play strong conferences.
cajunjacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 11,635
It isn't logical to think that after 12 games you can determine who are the two best teams in the country.
NFL football has proven time and time again that after 16 games the two teams with the best records rarely both make the Superbowl. Often times, wildcards who couldn't even win their own division will make it to the Superbowl.
The only legit argument against playoffs is tradition.
If you are trying to find the best team though, you need a playoff system. Period.
NFL football has proven time and time again that after 16 games the two teams with the best records rarely both make the Superbowl. Often times, wildcards who couldn't even win their own division will make it to the Superbowl.
The only legit argument against playoffs is tradition.
If you are trying to find the best team though, you need a playoff system. Period.
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
So you're of the belief that the Arizona Cardinals was the best team in the NFC despite losing 7 games last year? So they were worse than those 7 teams, but somehow they are the best in the NFC?
The only thing a playoff system does is prove who is the hottest at the end of the season. And as it has been posted before, it devalues the regular season, because the players want to save their energy and strength for when it 'matters'.
cajunjacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 11,635
There is zero controversy after each post season in:
MLB
NBA
NFL
NCAA-BB
NCAA-Baseball
There is controversy after many post seasons in:
CFB
and nothing else
When only one league at one level in only one ball sport has controversy about who the champion is after each season, there is something wrong.
So according to your logic, high school football and NFL has it all wrong. They should just pick the teams with the best rankings in human polls and computer polls to determine who plays in the championship. Those high school football, NFL, MLB, NBA, etc. playoffs are all bologna and CFB is the only one who has it right?
floridajacket
The Real DB Cooper
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,799
No. Think if UF and Bama play in the SECCG game. The chances are minuscule a rematch will happen in the BCS championship game. Atlanta will be two men in, one man out, a playoff game. With a large playoff, they very well could rest their starters in that game.
However, as the college football playing field becomes more level, the need for one is becoming more and more acute. When Miami and Nebraska played each other in 1985, we were pretty sure those we're the best teams in the nation. Only a handful of conferences plus ND fielded teams who could be considered MNC contenders.
Today, the top 10 has teams from all 6 BCS conferences plus the MWC and WAC. It's impossible to guage how these teams relate to each other. Different teams have two or three game distant relationships, often which conflict with each other. With sissy OOC schedules becoming the norm, it's nearly impossible to guage one conference against another until after bowl season.
But because I do think a playoff devalues the regular season, I support a playoff only of conference champions. Oklahoma loses to Kansas State in the big 12 championship game? Too bad. 5 seeds get upset by 12 seeds every year. This ain't intramurals brother. Every game is a playoff game and you have to win your conference to have a shot.
Even if a playoff does not select the "best" team, whatever that is, a playoff leaves the results to what happened on the field. No pollsters, computers, committees or other BCS BS. That's what we need to stop college football from becoming a beauty contest every year.
cajunjacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 11,635
Even if you did a 8 or 16 team playoff, it wouldn't devalue a season. It isn't easy to be top 8 or 16 at the end of the season. But according to all the folks who say it devalues a season, you all think that what GT has done so far is simple I guess. Do you honestly think that being top 8 isn't an accomplishment?
unforgiven108
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,121
Playoffs will not fix it. Look at the two above that have very large amounts of teams, NCAA-Basketball and baseball...there are still large arguments about seeding, and bubble teams. And the reason there is less arguments is because of the SIZE of the tournaments. For the NCAA-BB you cut the field in half, this gets 64 teams (a lot closer to the 32 teams for the other pro sports).
The way to get NO controversy is not to have playoffs, but to have less teams in a pool to get a shot at the NC. NFL, MLB, NBA all have less than 32 teams. This eliminates a lot of doubt from people's minds.
If you had just the Big 12, SEC, and the ACC, would there be much doubt as to which teams should be in the MNC?
You'd have conference championships to eliminate 3 of the top teams, and then out of those top 3 you can look at the body of work, there would be VERY little controversy most years.
It is not the lack of a playoff system that creates the controversy it is the quantity of teams all trying to get the same 'prize'.
Either lower the size of the amount of teams going for the NC, or have a 64 team playoff, which is absurd.
Even with a 64 team playoff you'd still have ALL kinds of controversy about the 'bubble teams'. It just wouldn't be on the national spotlight.