'The playoff has killed all the bowls outside the playoffs'

[LongTimeSooner]

This thread on the Notre Dame freeboard is interesting, and there are some crazy opinions being shared.

Comments like this:

"Sorry i liked the old old system where some years even after the bowls there was controversy. Whoud like to see the bowl tie ends end. And set up a pecking order that revoles. Let the bowls pick their own match ups regardless of rankings It would create some awesome match ups. Screw the play offs.'​

I think in general the ND people support the playoff and think there are too many bowl games (I agree), but there are more than a few that wish the playoff system would disappear.

Does anyone else thing that's crazy?!?! If anything, I'm ready to expand the playoffs to 8 or even the top 16 teams. Not go back to the bowl system and contested championship claims.

 

[LongTimeSooner]

PS: Could someone remind me which bowl the Longhorns played this year?

 

[Oklabama]

That would be the Lysol No-Mess Max Toilet Bowl....

 

[K2C Sooner]

If we would have won against Clemson, I know, big if, we would be without Perine(ankle surgery today), Mayfield, Walker, Evans, Westbrook,Mixon and a couple of others. I can't see a 8 team and especially a 16 team playoff without increasing the number of scholarships. I just don't see it.

 

[Plainosooner]

What is more interesting to me, is that I really don't care about the NC game. It will be nice. If it had been with the rest of the big bowls, I'd have watched it start to finish. I suspect that I'll watch part but not all of the game next Monday night. I'll bet the viewers will be down significantly. I hope that Clemson gets after them. But honestly, I really don't care. I wonder how many others feel the same way?

 

[Oklabama]

If we would have won against Clemson, I know, big if, we would be without Perine(ankle surgery today), Mayfield, Walker, Evans, Mayfield and a couple of others. I can't see a 8 team and especially a 16 team playoff without increasing the number of scholarships. I just don't see it.

The best argument that I've heard for NOT expanding the number of playoff teams.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

If we would have won against Clemson, I know, big if, we would be without Perine(ankle surgery today), Mayfield, Walker, Evans, Mayfield and a couple of others. I can't see a 8 team and especially a 16 team playoff without increasing the number of scholarships. I just don't see it.

As much as I hate seeing any player injured, this could have happened in Sept as well. I also think Perine's ankle was injured before the game. It was taped up massively.

 

[Soonersincefitty]

What is more interesting to me, is that I really don't care about the NC game. It will be nice. If it had been with the rest of the big bowls, I'd have watched it start to finish. I suspect that I'll watch part but not all of the game next Monday night. I'll bet the viewers will be down significantly. I hope that Clemson gets after them. But honestly, I really don't care. I wonder how many others feel the same way?

My abject indifference about that game is only exceeded by my apathy about it.

I may watch it, since it's cold outside and nothing else to do, but, since my Sooners aren't in it...I just flat don't care.

 

[K2C Sooner]

I have to admit I didn't watch much of the New Years bowl games. First I was sick for the first time in years on that day, but I think a lot of it was a hangover from our game. I do love the bowls, watched 90% of them before the 1st and will continue to support the system. As I've said before, what else are going to watch on TV if you're a college football fan? Reruns?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I have never jumped off a building wondering if OU was better than Houston. I have yet to talk to a major college player who longs for an eight team playoff.

One player told me, "you want an eight team playoff? (I don't) You go play in it. We're tired and beat up."

 

[LongTimeSooner]

If injuries and fatigue are a concern, I think it is reasonable to drop a non-conference game and shorten the regular season.

It's very seldom that a team schedules three or four meaningful opponents. Just drop off the FBS team or random cupcake. I can do without a pointless 70-3 drubbing of Utah A&M.

 

[Plainosooner]

I have never jumped off a building wondering if OU was better than Houston. I have yet to talk to a major college player who longs for an eight team playoff.

One player told me, "you want an eight team playoff? (I don't) You go play in it. We're tired and beat up."

I think that is a very valid point. I have a proposed solution that has too much common sense to be considered: Give all players five years eligibility. No redshirting. So instead of 65 players or so available for games. make it 80 or however many you have on scholarship. The NCAA will not, because of Title IX allow more football ships.

And there ought to be a way to allow schools to replace lost shipped guys Very few teams have 85 on scholarships once the season starts. Maybe Bama does, because they offer enough to get up to 90 and then greyshirt of they're still over after summer attrition.

It would be a start. But I'd propose that it be done now. And keep the four team playoff.

 

[Okie70]

Actually I liked watching the Alamo and Cactus bowls.

 

[PtLavacaSooner]

I think that is a very valid point. I have a proposed solution that has too much common sense to be considered: Give all players five years eligibility. No redshirting. So instead of 65 players or so available for games. make it 80 or however many you have on scholarship. The NCAA will not, because of Title IX allow more football ships.

And there ought to be a way to allow schools to replace lost shipped guys Very few teams have 85 on scholarships once the season starts. Maybe Bama does, because they offer enough to get up to 90 and then greyshirt of they're still over after summer attrition.

It would be a start. But I'd propose that it be done now. And keep the four team playoff.

Sense would have to be a common thing. It no longer is, making 'common' sense that of a retard.

 

[Count Hogula]

Actually I liked watching the Alamo and Cactus bowls.

The Liberty bowl was a good one too!

They probably would have to drop a regular season game to make room for an expanded playoff, and about that player complaining about being tired and beat up, I haven't heard any similar complaints from players from the lower divisions and all their playoffs have more than 8 teams.

 

[PtLavacaSooner]

Get rid of the selection committee. Use the old BCS system or something similar. Take the top 8 teams and give them a bye. 9- 24 play in minor bowl games at neutral sites. Reseed the winners and repeat. Playoffs would be:
8 games
8 games
4 games
2 games
True National Championship game.

Go back to an 11 game regular season. No regular season games in Dec. Limit conferences to 12 teams. Explore the possibility of conference champions getting automatic birth. Limit conference participation in playoff to 3 representatives.

 

[soonermade]

That is such BS about injuries and the playoffs expanding. 1AA and the NFL have expanded playoffs and they work just fine. Injuries happen, that's part of the game.

 

[Plainosooner]

That is such BS about injuries and the playoffs expanding. 1AA and the NFL have expanded playoffs and they work just fine. Injuries happen, that's part of the game.

You are so wrong. The average NFL offense plays between 60 and 65 snaps per game. Add 20 to that for a college offense, plus quality college players are often on special teams. Remember, we've have multiple games this year when we had high 90's of offensive snaps.

You are talking an additional 200 hundred offense snaps per year in the regular season. That is three NFL games. I believe that if you ask the players, they are all pretty beat up right now. Bob told Carey that their only tailback available for the final, had they made it, would have been Ross. 14 games is getting up there. For Bama and Clemson, it will be 15. That is crazy. So you want 16? Or 17? And these guys have 15 hours of classes to worry about.

Recently retired Dennis Francione coached bot FBS and FCS and he disliked the 16 team playoff, because it did not produce the best team as champ, but the luckiest with injuries.

I think he is right. I suspect adrenaline would kick in for the guys who made it to 15 this year, but it is incredibly tough. Fortunately I think they are tied to 4 for at least a decade. Surgery this week for Perine. And likely many more.

 

[Oklabama]

Plaino is right on. Frankly, very few teams have adequate backups for every position especially QB. But it's not only the QB position. Consider what losing DeMarco for the national championship game cost OU. If Bob Stoops had thought he had an adequate replacement for an injured Jason White against LSU would he had played Jason in the title game? Injuries are a big impact. The more games played, but great the opportunity for injury. That's why I believe not having the extra B12 CCG favors the the B12 teams (injury wise), but makes it more difficult to make the playoffs.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Injuries are part of the game. I disagree in that the luckiest team is always the best team. Always.

 

[Oklabama]

Injuries are part of the game. I disagree in that the luckiest team is always the best team. Always.

I agree with you, but I also believe that sometimes the luckiest team had the better record and reaps the rewards.

 

[JConXtsy]

Replace "luckiest" with "most prepared."

 

[Oklabama]

Replace "luckiest" with "most prepared."

No, I don't agree. The most prepared teams can be unlucky. Typically it involves key injuries. But to your point, the best prepared teams are more likely to win. Good post, JCon.

 

[K2C Sooner]

Injuries are part of the game. I disagree in that the luckiest team is always the best team. Always.

That's why WE never have had an upset in sporting history.....

 

[Plainosooner]

Why do you play a championship? It's supposed to be to find out who the best team is. That doesn't happen if it's second team quarterbacks, running backs or middle linebackers. Some teams can recruit extra depth. And some can get away with it playing their back ups. It's hard enough to beat one of the top four or five teams in the country with your best guys.

We have people on this site who complain all the time that we ought to be playing great teams every week. We don't because we couldn't win anything if we had the kind of attrition that would cause. Some of you think that "We're OU." We ought to be able to. You don't have a clue.

 

[LongTimeSooner]

Why do you play a championship? It's supposed to be to find out who the best team is. That doesn't happen if it's second team quarterbacks, running backs or middle linebackers. Some teams can recruit extra depth. And some can get away with it playing their back ups. It's hard enough to beat one of the top four or five teams in the country with your best guys.

We have people on this site who complain all the time that we ought to be playing great teams every week. We don't because we couldn't win anything if we had the kind of attrition that would cause. Some of you think that "We're OU." We ought to be able to. You don't have a clue.

Such negativity, I don't get it.

Isn't depth a good measure of how good a team is anyway?

Injuries, bad calls, turnovers. All part of the game.

 

[LongTimeSooner]

I should add: I'm also a proponent of paying these guys something too. Not packman jones 'make it rain' money, but something that rewards them for playing and pays more if they play in more games.

 

[PtLavacaSooner]

Why do you play a championship? It's supposed to be to find out who the best team is. That doesn't happen if it's second team quarterbacks, running backs or middle linebackers. Some teams can recruit extra depth. And some can get away with it playing their back ups. It's hard enough to beat one of the top four or five teams in the country with your best guys.

We have people on this site who complain all the time that we ought to be playing great teams every week. We don't because we couldn't win anything if we had the kind of attrition that would cause. Some of you think that "We're OU." We ought to be able to. You don't have a clue.

So I suppose it is ok to apply the same to say, Alabama? Is it luck in their case?

Last time I checked, backups were still members of the team, as are the 4th string holder for the FG unit. Teams win championships, not individuals. Of all things Plaino, it would be one thing I would've thought you learned from John Clark.

 

[WhyNotaSooner]

Why do you play a championship? It's supposed to be to find out who the best team is. That doesn't happen if it's second team quarterbacks, running backs or middle linebackers. Some teams can recruit extra depth. And some can get away with it playing their back ups. It's hard enough to beat one of the top four or five teams in the country with your best guys.

We have people on this site who complain all the time that we ought to be playing great teams every week. We don't because we couldn't win anything if we had the kind of attrition that would cause. Some of you think that "We're OU." We ought to be able to. You don't have a clue.

If it's your clue, I don't want it. Football is a team sport. Team's win. So what if the 'best' QB goes down. I'd prefer it not to occur but it happens. The next QB comes in. OU just played a couple of teams w/o their best QB. It was to our advantage. Perine & Mixon, along w/ Baker goes down, that was to Clemson's advantage. That's football. BTW, the Houston Texans have played 4 QBs this year and are headed to the playoffs. That's football.

 

[SoonerTulsan]

I should add: I'm also a proponent of paying these guys something too. Not packman jones 'make it rain' money, but something that rewards them for playing and pays more if they play in more games.

Are you assuming they're not already being paid handsomely??

 

[SoonerTulsan]

Plaino is right on. Frankly, very few teams have adequate backups for every position especially QB. But it's not only the QB position. Consider what losing DeMarco for the national championship game cost OU. If Bob Stoops had thought he had an adequate replacement for an injured Jason White against LSU would he had played Jason in the title game? Injuries are a big impact. The more games played, but great the opportunity for injury. That's why I believe not having the extra B12 CCG favors the the B12 teams (injury wise), but makes it more difficult to make the playoffs.

Actually, IMO, losing Austin Box was a bigger loss in the NC game (assuming you're referring to Tebow and Florida)

 

[SoonerTulsan]

That is such BS about injuries and the playoffs expanding. 1AA and the NFL have expanded playoffs and they work just fine. Injuries happen, that's part of the game.

Not too many invested in watching 1AA, so I can't speak for how much injuries play a part and matter. It's safe to say though there aren't nearly as many 265 pound LBs that can run a 4.5 40 in 1AA though. And the players in the NFL don't have to try and balance a full load of class work and the scores of other demands of their time.

The reason they won't expand (assuming they won't), is because they'd have to eliminate a non-conference game....which equals $$ for the big D1 schools.

 

[Plainosooner]

Such negativity, I don't get it.

Isn't depth a good measure of how good a team is anyway?

Injuries, bad calls, turnovers. All part of the game.

Remind me of the team who won the Super Bowl with a back up quarterback. I think it's happened once. There is one backup that quarterbacked two teams to the Super Bowl. He was primarily responsible for the first ones huge upset loss, and in the second, was removed in the conference finals because he was fading again. His team won it, because the first team guy recovered from a broken leg to play in January.

In the NFL, the chances of having a quality back up at a position is a whole lot higher than in college football. But the bigger issue is the damage to players' bodies that is occurring, they longer it goes on. College football puts the players at more risk than any other team sport with the possible exception of NHL hockey. The spirit of your post, almost ignores their well being. They aren't cattle.

 

[Plainosooner]

This thread on the Notre Dame freeboard is interesting, and there are some crazy opinions being shared.

Comments like this:

"Sorry i liked the old old system where some years even after the bowls there was controversy. Whoud like to see the bowl tie ends end. And set up a pecking order that revoles. Let the bowls pick their own match ups regardless of rankings It would create some awesome match ups. Screw the play offs.'​

I think in general the ND people support the playoff and think there are too many bowl games (I agree), but there are more than a few that wish the playoff system would disappear.

Does anyone else thing that's crazy?!?! If anything, I'm ready to expand the playoffs to 8 or even the top 16 teams. Not go back to the bowl system and contested championship claims.

His post is quite an irony and likely someone too young to remember when Notre Dame went 45 years by choice, not playing in a bowl game because they thought it was too hard on the players and too detracting from academics. From 1924 until 1970 (Jan 1 after the '69 regular season, ND did not participate in any bowl game.)

 

[PtLavacaSooner]

Are you assuming they're not already being paid handsomely??

Come on ST, you know a quality college education is an entitlement these days... Give me my NC and a Master's, dammit!

 

[SoonerTulsan]

Come on ST, you know a quality college education is an entitlement these days... Give me my NC and a Master's, dammit!

I'm talking CA$H, not degree. Naive to assume these kids aren't getting "perks" outside of an education.

 

[PtLavacaSooner]

I'm talking CA$H, not degree. Naive to assume these kids aren't getting "perks" outside of an education.

Naive to assume that I assumed anything from my post...

 

[SoonerTulsan]

Naive to assume that I assumed anything from my post...

It's also naive to assume that I assumed you assumed that I assumed.