The layoff issue

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:41 pm

It seems I've heard much more complaining about that this year than in past years. And to be sure, tOSU had the longest pre-bowl layoff in history, going from November 18 to January 8 without a game.

Question is, how do you propose fixing that? I honestly don't see a practical way to do it.

I think some would like the post-season to start immediately following the regular season. The problem with that suggestion is that you would then be holding the postseason, or at least part of it, during a time when most schools have final exams going on. So that suggestion plays right into the hands of the university presidents who oppose a playoff upon the grounds that it would impair academics.

There are a few other suggestions that have come to me. You could shorten the regular season by two games or so. That would create a window of a few weeks to hold, or at least start, the postseason ahead of finals. But you would inevitably cost most teams some revenue by doing so. Since football supports the entire athletic department at many schools, you would see any number of sports take a hit as a result.

It's also occurred to me that you could start the regular season a few weeks early. But this too is a problematic suggestion. First, you are putting the regular season into a time of year that is very hot in much of the country, so you're exposing the players to health risks that aren't already there. Second, there is a likely revenue hit under this proposal as well, albeit not as drastic a hit as would be occasioned by cutting the regular season. Another issue is the impact this would have on the students. For many people, college football is an important part of forming the bond between themselves and their school, which bond often exists, as even a brief perusal of this board would tell you, for a number of years after the person has left the school. Many people don't attend a school within reasonable commuting distance of where they live. For these people, by starting the season earlier, you're asking them to choose between returning to campus early because the regular season has started, or missing 1 or 2 early-season games.

All things considered, while the layoff is far from ideal, I don't see any practical way to fix it. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:51 pm

The only thing I could see is starting the reg season a little later so that the Conferences that dont have Championship games are finished w/ their season on Thanks giving weekend or the weekend after.

I would also have the last Bowl game be no later than the 3rd or 4th of January. January 8th is way to long after New Years day to have a ball game. If tOSU/Mich and the other schools in the Big10/Pac 10/Big East could find away to be done by Nov 30 or so, then they would only have 31-34 days off if they are playing in the Title game.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:02 pm

Cicero wrote:I would also have the last Bowl game be no later than the 3rd or 4th of January. January 8th is way to long after New Years day to have a ball game.

I see your point, but unfortunately, this isn't a realistic suggestion under the status quo.

As things currently stand, one of the four BCS sites -- Glendale, Ariz., Miami, New Orleans or Pasadena -- will be hosting two bowls every year. Assuming the first one is played on New Year's Day, they'll need at least another week to get ready for the second game.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:08 pm

I don't buy that much into the layoff factor...

yes tOSU had 51 days...FLA had 39...12 pretty big difference...I know many coaches worry about coming out flat off a bye week...so 5 weeks for FLA and 7.5 weeks for tOSU...FLA obviously handled it better...

the only clear cut solution in my mind is a playoff...end the regular seasons of all teams the same weekend...wait the two weeks for finals and what not and start the playoff the 2nd week of December. Then you can play an 8 game playoff...have your two weeks of games...then one week of for Christmas and then the Big One on New Years Night or shortly thereafter...

Imagine an 8 team playoff this year

tOSU vs Wake
FLA vs BSU
USC vs ND
Michigan vs OU

^^^^^^
hypothetical but that is how it might have went down and you could have had that first round the 2nd week of december at the home teams sites...then the next round perhaps again at home? Then you can go to a bowl type site and give the other 6 teams who are not in the Championship Game slots in the 4 other BCS Bowls with two other teams just finishing outside the top 8 slots...to me that is the only way you get around this issue...

Just my opinion...

I mean tOSU had 43 days last year and did fine and they also had a pretty long layoff in 2002 when going to the MNC game so they have faced it before...not sure where the formula went wrong...I know...they never bothered to get on the plane mentally...

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:10 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Cicero wrote:I would also have the last Bowl game be no later than the 3rd or 4th of January. January 8th is way to long after New Years day to have a ball game.
I see your point, but unfortunately, this isn't a realistic suggestion under the status quo.

As things currently stand, one of the four BCS sites -- Glendale, Ariz., Miami, New Orleans or Pasadena -- will be hosting two bowls every year. Assuming the first one is played on New Year's Day, they'll need at least another week to get ready for the second game.

Then add another bowl to the rotation so that no one has to host two games. Make the Cotton or the Capital One or the Garden Valley Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl a fifth BCS bowl and rotate the championship game like they used to. February 7 or 8 is way too late for that game.

Or just play the championship game two weeks after the conference championships. Doesn’t make any of the other bowls any less relevant than they already are.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:12 pm

I think the last line of yours made the most sense...what if they play the MNC game on Dec 23rd (Saturday)...wouldn't have changed a damn thing with the later bowls...

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:18 pm

buckeye_in_sc wrote:you could have had that first round the 2nd week of december at the home teams sites...then the next round perhaps again at home?

Goober McTuber wrote:Or just play the championship game two weeks after the conference championships.

buckeye_in_sc wrote: I think the last line of yours made the most sense...what if they play the MNC game on Dec 23rd

I think you guys are missing the point here. The time frame you're looking at for these games corresponds with final exams at most schools.

As it stands right now, the primary argument advanced by university presidents opposed to a playoff is academics. The argument is a farce, in that a playoff can be worked around the more critical academic times. But advocating that the teams play over finals is playing right into their hands.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:42 pm

tOSU is on quarters and our exams were usually done by December 8th (when I was there)...in my graduate work we were on semesters and we were usually done by December 3rd...so you got a point...ok 3rd week? they could still practice the second week...

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:54 pm

Why not move back their last games to the end on november?

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:55 pm

ND was on semesters when I was there. IIRC, we didn't get done with finals until about a week or so before Christmas. I recall usually having to go back for spring semester about January 15, and we almost always had had less than a month off.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:04 pm

T REX wrote:Why not move back their last games to the end on november?

My thoughts exactly. I believe the Big 10 finishes on 11/17 this year, so they are going to be in the same situation if they have the #1 or #2 in the BCS again.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:52 pm

T REX wrote:Why not move back their last games to the end on november?

How do you propose to do this? Eliminate one game? Start the season a week earlier? Reduce bye weeks?

Even if you accomplish that, it'll work as long as the bowl system is in place, but if there's ever a playoff, you still will have a layoff issue.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:13 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
T REX wrote:Why not move back their last games to the end on november?
How do you propose to do this? Eliminate one game? Start the season a week earlier? Reduce bye weeks?

Even if you accomplish that, it'll work as long as the bowl system is in place, but if there's ever a playoff, you still will have a layoff issue.

How about actually using the bye week? If the Big 10 ends their schedule on 11/17 and they begin on the weekend on 9/1, then they play 12 straight weeks.

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:34 pm

As has been said, a playoff would fill those time gaps nicely...

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:41 pm

MuchoBulls wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
T REX wrote:Why not move back their last games to the end on november?
How do you propose to do this? Eliminate one game? Start the season a week earlier? Reduce bye weeks?

Even if you accomplish that, it'll work as long as the bowl system is in place, but if there's ever a playoff, you still will have a layoff issue.
How about actually using the bye week? If the Big 10 ends their schedule on 11/17 and they begin on the weekend on 9/1, then they play 12 straight weeks.

But that ties in with another problem -- teams playing 1-AA opponents. Currently there are 119 1-A teams. If every team plays every week, somebody will be playing a 1-AA opponent in any given week, unless you put an even number of teams in 1-A.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:24 am

which is why you cut the amount of D1 teams to 80 or so, and make it a nice even number. Nobody should play a 1aa team, there's no excuse aside from cowardness

Jimmy Medalions · Post by **Jimmy Medalions** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:49 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:which is why you cut the amount of D1 teams to 80 or so, and make it a nice even number. Nobody should play a 1aa team, there's no excuse aside from cowardness

There's a division other than D1? I call bullshit.

-SECfan

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:48 am

The Seer wrote:As has been said, a playoff would fill those time gaps nicely...

It would work great. Save all of the bowl games for that week between Christmas and New Year's Day and play the 3 or 4 round playoff the week after the season ends and then use the bowl games as the NIT for the also-rans...which it pretty much does that already. Instead of ESPN having the games spread out over 3 weeks...just play them in one week with maybe pare it down to a dozen games for the next 24 best teams to participate in during the holidays after the national championship has been settled. Or you can save the national championship game for primetime on New Year's night in the middle of the other bowl games. The layoff is just another product of how much they are a slave to their sponsor-driven bowl season and having it around the holidays. That first half of December is left wide open for something to fill the void.

MuchoBulls · Post by **MuchoBulls** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:14 am

Terry in Crapchester wrote:But that ties in with another problem -- teams playing 1-AA opponents. Currently there are 119 1-A teams. If every team plays every week, somebody will be playing a 1-AA opponent in any given week, unless you put an even number of teams in 1-A.

We're specifically talking about the Big 10. They are the conference who has the longest layoff between the end of their regular season and the BCS National Title game. A good majority of the BCS programs play 1 AA teams. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt the attendance of most of the Big 10 teams since they would draw well regardless.

You can look at the layoff between games two: 1)the team is "rusty" from all the time off and from going through the monotony of practicing against one another, or 2)a chance for injured players to heal a bit longer and have your team ready to knock the crap out of whoever they play because they are tired of the monotony.

Vito Corleone · Post by **Vito Corleone** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:56 am

SoCalTrjn wrote:which is why you cut the amount of D1 teams to 80 or so, and make it a nice even number. Nobody should play a 1aa team, there's no excuse aside from cowardness

Who stays and who goes? Can you say lawsuits from hell

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:42 am

you take the top ranked 80 or so teams, they only play each other, the worst 10-12 drop to the lower division and the 10-12 best of the lower division move up. Make them earn the right to be among the top group and play for the D1 title