PDA

View Full Version : College Football question


eddie mac
06-30-2011, 08:38 AM
Can someone explain to me the following about college football.

Why

1. Their season is so short, 3-4 months of competitive games.

2. They only play a max of 11-12 games per year

3. They have no pre-season games

Last time I checked some of these coaches get paid a bomb to coach these kids for 12 games a year and the TV companies pay a fortune for some of the TV rights, why the hell is their season so short???

vancejohnson82
06-30-2011, 08:43 AM
Can someone explain to me the following about college football.

Why

1. Their season is so short, 3-4 months of competitive games.

2. They only play a max of 11-12 games per year

3. They have no pre-season games

Last time I checked some of these coaches get paid a bomb to coach these kids for 12 games a year and the TV companies pay a fortune for some of the TV rights, why the hell is their season so short???

1) I would assume it is because they are supposed to be "student" athletes...

2) I think 1 and 2 are kind of intertwined

3) they sort of do have pre-season games....when Texas opens up against Southeastern Dakota it gets treated like a pre-season game...unless you are Michigan

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 08:46 AM
No playoffs. Which is retarded. Unless you root fora 1-AA squad like my Montana Grizzlies. Then you get playoffs, a true national champion, without the BCS bull****.

And yeah, they're "student" athletes. That's why the season's so short.

StugotsIII
06-30-2011, 08:47 AM
Can someone explain to me the following about college football.

Why

1. Their season is so short, 3-4 months of competitive games.

2. They only play a max of 11-12 games per year

3. They have no pre-season games

Last time I checked some of these coaches get paid a bomb to coach these kids for 12 games a year and the TV companies pay a fortune for some of the TV rights, why the hell is their season so short???



It's dictated by the NCAA....remember....these kids are all in school. It's one of the arguments "they" use against a playoff...

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 09:06 AM
It's dictated by the NCAA....remember....these kids are all in school. It's one of the arguments "they" use against a playoff...

they only argue against a playoff for major college football. divisions 1-AA, II, III all have playoffs, as do college baseball, basketball, tennis... the list goes on.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 09:35 AM
It amuses me the people think that FBS owes them a playoff system. It's not your choice and really none-of-your-business. It also amuses me that the Federal Government wants to be involved.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 09:44 AM
It amuses me the people think that FBS owes them a playoff system. It's not your choice and really none-of-your-business. It also amuses me that the Federal Government wants to be involved.

I don't think it's owed. I think it would be better for everyone, including students, fans, the NCAA itself, college athletics, the networks, et al.

I'm with you on the government getting involved. Pretty dumb.

StugotsIII
06-30-2011, 09:54 AM
It amuses me the people think that FBS owes them a playoff system. It's not your choice and really none-of-your-business. It also amuses me that the Federal Government wants to be involved.

I don't think anyone is saying FBS owes us a playoff.


I would say it would be nice to have more meaningful NCAA football games in the post season, rather than just one.


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have MORE football instead of less.

broncocalijohn
06-30-2011, 11:18 AM
It amuses me the people think that FBS owes them a playoff system. It's not your choice and really none-of-your-business. It also amuses me that the Federal Government wants to be involved.

You always got to be different. The NCAA excuses are horrible when other divisions have it and the revenue is way less than Division 1 schools. It is OUR OPINION regardless of our business or choice.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 11:20 AM
I don't think anyone is saying FBS owes us a playoff.


I would say it would be nice to have more meaningful NCAA football games in the post season, rather than just one.


I don't know about you, but I'd rather have MORE football instead of less.

I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 11:48 AM
You always got to be different. The NCAA excuses are horrible when other divisions have it and the revenue is way less than Division 1 schools. It is OUR OPINION regardless of our business or choice.

Why is it required? Why does FBS need a playoff. Keep in mind this is out of the control of the NCAA and completely up to the colleges themselves.

ohiobronco2
06-30-2011, 12:22 PM
I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

Then what is your answer when 3 teams finish the season undefeated? A plus one?

Pick Six
06-30-2011, 01:35 PM
I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

I was going to make a similar point. Football is so popular BECAUSE the season is so short. There are a lot of meaningful games, due to the fact that they don't have a lot of time to position themselves for a major bowl. I contrast that to the NBA, NHL and MLB. The casual fan will only pay attention to those sports when it gets close to playoff time. There is no urgency to win an NBA game in November...

Kaylore
06-30-2011, 01:39 PM
I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

Except that it's not. You case in point works for us. For every 2 loss Florida that wins it, there's an undefeated Utah left out because of "voters." It's garbage.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 01:42 PM
Then what is your answer when 3 teams finish the season undefeated? A plus one?

We pick the best two teams and have them play because not all schedules are equal.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 01:47 PM
Except that it's not. You case in point works for us. For every 2 loss Florida that wins it, there's an undefeated Utah left out because of "voters." It's garbage.

All I can say to that is when the BCS first came up the "subjective votes" accounted for 25 percent of the score. The statisical analysis accounted for 75 percent. Now it's flipped.

Kaylore
06-30-2011, 01:50 PM
All I can say to that is when the BCS first came up the "subjective votes" accounted for 25 percent of the score. The statisical analysis accounted for 75 percent. Now it's flipped.

Again, this is why it's garbage. It will change again, too. The writers pretend they don't like it, but they secretly love the ideas that they're the ones who get to crown the champions. The coaches poll is better, but they don't have time to watch every freaking team.

A simple playoff system of the top 4-6 teams would not be hard to do.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 01:54 PM
Again, this is why it's garbage. It will change again, too. The writers pretend they don't like it, but they secretly love the ideas that they're the ones who get to crown the champions. The coaches poll is better, but they don't have time to watch every freaking team.

A simple playoff system of the top 4-6 teams would not be hard to do.

Its better today than it ever was. To me, there never actually is a National Champion in FBS...or really NCAA BB either. The BCS is better than just the writers crowning a championship...and they don't anymore. At least it's coaches and the Harris poll (WTF?!?!) and the actual math based on some level of objective criteria that determine the best two teams out of 100 plus teams and at least it's actually settled on a field.

StugotsIII
06-30-2011, 02:14 PM
I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

It's not...

That One Guy
06-30-2011, 02:30 PM
I'm more irritated, personally, by student athletes that can't read or talk like a grown adult than I am about the playoff system. I like college football (now that Michigan has a team again, particularly) but would rather they just do away with it if they can't fix it.

enjolras
06-30-2011, 02:39 PM
Its better today than it ever was. To me, there never actually is a National Champion in FBS...or really NCAA BB either. The BCS is better than just the writers crowning a championship...and they don't anymore. At least it's coaches and the Harris poll (WTF?!?!) and the actual math based on some level of objective criteria that determine the best two teams out of 100 plus teams and at least it's actually settled on a field.

How is there no national champion in basketball? At the beginning of the year every single team has a chance to win the title. Whoever is left standing in the end is your champion and rightfully so.

You can't claim that college football is ever "settled on the field" because it's not.

In football that's just not true, even when the lower conference team (utah) is the best team in the nation in a given season.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 02:54 PM
How is there no national champion in basketball? At the beginning of the year every single team has a chance to win the title. Whoever is left standing in the end is your champion and rightfully so.

You can't claim that college football is ever "settled on the field" because it's not.

In football that's just not true, even when the lower conference team (utah) is the best team in the nation in a given season.

The Champion is based on a one and done. I guess a more accurrate statement is the best team doesn't always win the NC in NCAA BB. Now if they did 2 of 3...that would be more indicative of a true champ.

It's all about context. Before the News Papers would pick one regardless. Today at least two teams are choosen on some measure of objective criteria and a game is played and the winner of that game is the NC.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
06-30-2011, 03:06 PM
The Champion is based on a one and done. I guess a more accurrate statement is the best team doesn't always win the NC in NCAA BB. Now if they did 2 of 3...that would be more indicative of a true champ.

It's all about context. Before the News Papers would pick one regardless. Today at least two teams are choosen on some measure of objective criteria and a game is played and the winner of that game is the NC.

Objective criteria = $$$

If you're not in a big money conference, you don't get to play the title game. Period.

RhymesayersDU
06-30-2011, 03:08 PM
Objective criteria = $$$

If you're not in a big money conference, you don't get to play the title game. Period.

Shocking that a Hokie fan would be a proponent of such a system, isn't it?

NFLBRONCO
06-30-2011, 03:16 PM
This is why

1. Coaches and players need time to break NCAA rules
2. Coaches need a month to announce they did not know what a player did
3. Coaches need another month to admit they knew and write a weak a** apology nobody believes
4. Coaches need a month finally resign, redo resume to bail before school gets nailed with sanctions

So NCAA can't have longer seasons

RhymesayersDU
06-30-2011, 03:17 PM
I see what you did there, quite a commentary.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 03:35 PM
Objective criteria = $$$

If you're not in a big money conference, you don't get to play the title game. Period.

The statistical poll's data is objective. Yards gained and other metrics. I qualified it with "some measure" of objective criteria.

Garcia Bronco
06-30-2011, 03:37 PM
Shocking that a Hokie fan would be a proponent of such a system, isn't it?

I am just a Hokie. That's all you need to say. I got papers to prove it. :)

Champagne Powder
06-30-2011, 03:55 PM
Its better today than it ever was. To me, there never actually is a National Champion in FBS...or really NCAA BB either. The BCS is better than just the writers crowning a championship...and they don't anymore. At least it's coaches and the Harris poll (WTF?!?!) and the actual math based on some level of objective criteria that determine the best two teams out of 100 plus teams and at least it's actually settled on a field.

The old bowl system used to be exciting. Some New Years Days you would have 4 or 5 teams that could win the national title based on what transpired that day.

While the No. 1 vs. No. 2 game is great, 1 or 2 of the other BCS games are usually unappealing and the politics of the system forces these bowls to pit two teams that don't match up well together. There's even a dumb rule where three teams from one conference can't make the BCS. Does anybody remember the exciting New Years Day in 1985 when the Pac Ten sent three teams to bowls? It's just too corporate now. In the old days, the Orange/Sugar/Cotton would do backroom deals and the match ups were a lot better because every bowl tried to get the best game for themselves.

Champagne Powder
06-30-2011, 04:19 PM
I would argue that each college game n FBS is an elimination game for the championship.

By rewarding only conference champions to the dance, the college football regular season doesn't have to lose any significance in a playoff system.

Compared to 1990, the amount of top 25 teams that play top 25 teams in non-conference games has fallen off considerably.

I think fans would prefer to see elite programs challenge themselves more than having to watch blowout victories versus cupcakes, just to preserve an undefeated season.

The BCS system has made programs too gun shy because winning conferences isn't good enough anymore.

Now that it's all about "0" in the loss column, it's watered down the pre-conference play schedule. Every time I look at this year's September schedule, Oregon-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida State are appealing, but overall I am little underwhelmed and disappointed by the number of quality matchups

TheReverend
06-30-2011, 04:39 PM
By rewarding only conference champions to the dance, the college football regular season doesn't have to lose any significance in a playoff system.

Compared to 1990, the amount of top 25 teams that play top 25 teams in non-conference games has fallen off considerably.

I think fans would prefer to see elite programs challenge themselves more than having to watch blowout victories versus cupcakes, just to preserve an undefeated season.

The BCS system has made programs too gun shy because winning conferences isn't good enough anymore.

Now that it's all about "0" in the loss column, it's watered down the pre-conference play schedule. Every time I look at this year's September schedule, Oregon-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida State are appealing, but overall I am little underwhelmed and disappointed by the number of quality matchups

This, exactly.

DBroncos4life
06-30-2011, 05:02 PM
I like college football the way it is.

eddie mac
06-30-2011, 06:31 PM
I wonder with the NFL eventually moving to an 18 game regular season will the NCAAF think about increasing games to get these kids ready for the NFL, the ones that make it off course. I realise educaton is the first priority or should be, but I think it needs to move on much like the NFL is attempting to (bar the stupid ****ing money/lockout business).

Maybe I'm just selfish but more american football of any kind is music to my ears. I'm even watching ****ing CFL now I'm that desperate.Hilarious!

maher_tyler
06-30-2011, 08:29 PM
By rewarding only conference champions to the dance, the college football regular season doesn't have to lose any significance in a playoff system.

Compared to 1990, the amount of top 25 teams that play top 25 teams in non-conference games has fallen off considerably.

I think fans would prefer to see elite programs challenge themselves more than having to watch blowout victories versus cupcakes, just to preserve an undefeated season.

The BCS system has made programs too gun shy because winning conferences isn't good enough anymore.

Now that it's all about "0" in the loss column, it's watered down the pre-conference play schedule. Every time I look at this year's September schedule, Oregon-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida State are appealing, but overall I am little underwhelmed and disappointed by the number of quality matchups

Especially when you don't play in the SEC..if your in any other conference and lose a game, your chances at the Championship game aren't looking to good. What sucks more is if your in your conference championship game undefeated and lose..your basically ****ed!

ol#7
07-01-2011, 02:21 AM
By rewarding only conference champions to the dance, the college football regular season doesn't have to lose any significance in a playoff system.

Compared to 1990, the amount of top 25 teams that play top 25 teams in non-conference games has fallen off considerably.

I think fans would prefer to see elite programs challenge themselves more than having to watch blowout victories versus cupcakes, just to preserve an undefeated season.

The BCS system has made programs too gun shy because winning conferences isn't good enough anymore.

Now that it's all about "0" in the loss column, it's watered down the pre-conference play schedule. Every time I look at this year's September schedule, Oregon-LSU, Oklahoma-Florida State are appealing, but overall I am little underwhelmed and disappointed by the number of quality matchups

Rep!

You have nailed it! Garcia Bronco needs to go back to school. Teams will not even put Boise on the schedule at home because they dont want to risk an early season Non Conference loss. How is that a fair system or a weekly elimination. The whole thing as lousy as it was, was at least better before the stupid BCS. I have hated it ever since CU and Oregon got screwed out of a chance to play Miami but somehow Nebraska did. Ill tell you this much, I have pretty much ignored College Football ever since.

Rother8
07-01-2011, 03:17 AM
No playoffs. Which is retarded. Unless you root fora 1-AA squad like my Montana Grizzlies. Then you get playoffs, a true national champion, without the BCS bull****.

And yeah, they're "student" athletes. That's why the season's so short.

We'll see ya in the UNI Dome, buddy.

Play2win
07-01-2011, 04:44 AM
The NCAA, the only thing more evil than the NFLPA in the world today.

Garcia Bronco
07-01-2011, 05:08 AM
Rep!

You have nailed it! Garcia Bronco needs to go back to school. Teams will not even put Boise on the schedule at home because they dont want to risk an early season Non Conference loss. How is that a fair system or a weekly elimination. The whole thing as lousy as it was, was at least better before the stupid BCS. I have hated it ever since CU and Oregon got screwed out of a chance to play Miami but somehow Nebraska did. Ill tell you this much, I have pretty much ignored College Football ever since.

My school schedule them. We lost too. So I don't want to hear it.

Pick Six
07-01-2011, 08:23 AM
I like college football the way it is.

Cosigned...

Garcia Bronco
07-01-2011, 09:19 AM
The NCAA, the only thing more evil than the NFLPA in the world today.

The NCAA night be evil, but they have nothing to do with it. The colleges have decided to do the BCS.....not the NCAA.

Pick Six
07-01-2011, 11:12 AM
I think fans would prefer to see elite programs challenge themselves more than having to watch blowout victories versus cupcakes, just to preserve an undefeated season.



Those "cupcakes" depend on the power schools to help fund their programs. It's a good tradeoff. The small schools get money for their program, and the big schools get practice time...

bronco militia
07-01-2011, 11:23 AM
Cosigned...

+1

broncocalijohn
07-01-2011, 11:52 AM
Easiest and a good compromise is to have the top 4 teams have the playoff and the BCS Title game still goes on as scheduled. The two games that precede the Title game would also be BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Rose,etc).

RhymesayersDU
07-01-2011, 12:32 PM
Easiest and a good compromise is to have the top 4 teams have the playoff and the BCS Title game still goes on as scheduled. The two games that precede the Title game would also be BCS bowl games (Fiesta, Rose,etc).

Agreed, we don't even necessarily need a full blown playoff, even a +1 scenario would be fantastic.

Now, the BCS proponent will say "yeah but that 5th team now has a problem" and maybe that's true, BUT it would be a step in the right direction, and would be progress from the current system.

Champagne Powder
07-01-2011, 02:12 PM
Those "cupcakes" depend on the power schools to help fund their programs. It's a good tradeoff. The small schools get money for their program, and the big schools get practice time...

I am not advocating that big time programs completely get rid of the "cupcakes".

I understand the politics of keeping the little guy afloat will never make that a realistic goal.

But most big time programs would be better served to add more more tough non-conference game to their schedule. Is two tough games and two cupcake games too much to ask for?

Some big time programs don't even play one tough non-conference game in a given season.

Notre Dame, USC and UCLA are the only three FBS schools that have never played a FCS school. God bless them for that.

SoCalBronco
07-01-2011, 09:38 PM
Rep!

You have nailed it! Garcia Bronco needs to go back to school. Teams will not even put Boise on the schedule at home because they dont want to risk an early season Non Conference loss. How is that a fair system or a weekly elimination. The whole thing as lousy as it was, was at least better before the stupid BCS. I have hated it ever since CU and Oregon got screwed out of a chance to play Miami but somehow Nebraska did. Ill tell you this much, I have pretty much ignored College Football ever since.

I'm not sure why you are so upset about that. CU and Oregon were spared the indignity of being utterly humiliated in front of the entire country by one of the greatest college teams ever and arguably the most talented college team ever. There's nothing be upset about.

ZachKC
07-02-2011, 02:14 PM
Can't wait for college football to come back.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/470109/Oklahoma6-Josey.jpg

That One Guy
07-02-2011, 02:17 PM
Can't wait for college football to come back.

[Really F'ing Big Pic]

/[Really F'ing Big Pic]



Excited to see them choke again? Every time they get me even mildly interested in their potential, they fall apart. They need a big win if they want to cement themselves as being one of the true contenders.

DBroncos4life
07-02-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm not sure why you are so upset about that. CU and Oregon were spared the indignity of being utterly humiliated in front of the entire country by one of the greatest college teams ever and arguably the most talented college team ever. There's nothing be upset about.

Wasn't there 21 first round draft picks on that team? That D was sick, Vilma, DJ Williams, Rolle, Ed Reed, Phillip Buchanon, and Vince Wilfork.

The O had Andre Johnson, Santana Moss, Reggie Wayne, Shockey, Portis, Willis McGahee, and Najeh Davenport.

I wish NU didn't have to play that team lol.

ZachKC
07-02-2011, 03:56 PM
Excited to see them choke again? Every time they get me even mildly interested in their potential, they fall apart. They need a big win if they want to cement themselves as being one of the true contenders.

They beat the #1 team in the country on national television last year.

I mean this is Missouri...they aren't going to be one of those teams that is in the title hunt year in and year out.

They have a good program that has won *a lot* of games and the talent they bring in just keeps getting better and better.

40 wins over the course of 4 years while playing in the Big 12 is some good football. They *do* need to put together some key wins that they have had over that span into a series to go on and do better things.

Lets not forget they were completely ****ed over for a BCS game during their 12 win season.