T1B

If true, then he probably deserves a bullet....

The Seer wrote:If true, then he probably deserves a bullet....

As do the heads of the other BCS conferences. They're all complicit.

Jim Delaney has great hair!

TheJON wrote:Jim Delaney has great hair!

Compared to Jeff Van Gundy

FTFY

TheJON wrote:Jim Delaney has great hair!

I know a cut you prefer...

"There's probably more of an outcry than there was 15 years ago for something different. I don't disagree with that," Delany said during a recent interview in Chicago. "But what I've also seen simultaneously is the growth in interest in the BCS and the regular season.

Nice logic, jackass. "Well, if people are talking about it, it must be a good thing."

Using his resoning, Orenthal's trial was a great example of the criminal justice system at its best because there was huge "interest" in it.

THE JIM DELANY FILE
Name: James Edward "Jim" Delany
Hometown: South Orange, N.J.

Family: Wife, Catherine; children, NEWMAN, 17, and James Chancellor, 14.



NEWMAN!!!!!!!

How long has it been, NAFUSP, since we've had a Mr. Rogers reset on this board? At least a year. Man, I really miss that rant I had a few years back about what a child molestor he was. One of our finer discussions we've ever had on here, I must say.


War 70 year old men making a big deal out of tying their shoes

Jsc810 wrote:

But as he has done with the public outcry, Delany has largely ignored the coaches' call for a playoff. He readily admits a playoff could be good for Division I-A football at large, but quickly adds, "I don't work for college football at large."

In other words, the sponsors and TV networks are really calling the shots.

It strikes me a bit odd that any one person could singlehandedly prevent a playoff. Then again, the article makes a good point -- with the Rose Bowl having a separate deal from the rest of the BCS, the Big 10, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl could conceivably block a playoff, or at least opt out of one, which would have the same effect.

Seems to me that too many people are looking out for their own turf alone. Without that attitude, we'd have a playoff already.

He seems to believe that a playoff would diminish interest in the regular season, and thus crimp the revenues from the Season.

Then again he also believes that a lot of people like the BCS format.

Not that he could really change things that easily anyway. There is a lot of money tied up in that CBS contract that runs to 2014.

However I think it could be done right to make the regular season a key part of the process, and have the bowls be the featured sites for the playoffs.

It couldn't be that hard to organize. Basketball has a much larger tournament to figure out, and it never fails to bring the excitement, the regular CBB season is just as interesting for the fans, and on top of that there are other tournaments during the Basketball season and march Madness is STILL a huge deal.

He really has no factual basis for his beliefs in this regard.

Mister Bushice wrote:He seems to believe that a playoff would diminish interest in the regular season, and thus crimp the revenues from the Season.

I'd hate to break it to the guy but the only games that matter late in the season are the ones involving the ones battling for the top two spots in the overall standings. You can't tell me that mighty Northwestern-Illinois game back on November 18 would've been any less meaningful if a playoff was established. If you had a 16 team playoff...there would be big games all the way to the end of the season involving those trying to win their conferences or trying to earn an at large bid. Right now, the only thing to play for involving those out of the title hunt each is just getting bowl eligible...to me, that's not all that exciting. I'm not too concerned with seeing the 5th or 6th place in a conference trying to get that elusive 6th win.

All we need for a playoff is two or three major conference and a bunch of minor conferences to start a playoff and the rest would join in and jump to be part of it.

If the SEC ACC and Big 12 along with all the mid majors got together there would be a playoff and the Big 10 would jump on board eventually.

A playoff will never work with the current conference allignments, amount of d1 teams and OOC scheduling

SoCalTrjn wrote:A playoff will never work with the current conference allignments, amount of d1 teams and OOC scheduling

Care to explain why you feel that way?

If they had an even number of teams, I think they can keep teams from playing against lower division schools. Keep all games between D-IA teams. I do think all of the conference need to adopt a form of a championship game. The majority of the conferences have them right now. Some leagues are too big to play a complete round robin...the Pac-10 does it though. The leagues need to have a way to determine outright champs of each league to serve as automatic bids and then offer a few spots to at large teams.

It's honestly not as hard as it would seem to put this together...I think there are just a lot of stubborn people in charge. It's just a matter of how many teams they want to have involved and what they will do with the bowl games.

Shoalzie wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:A playoff will never work with the current conference allignments, amount of d1 teams and OOC scheduling

Care to explain why you feel that way?

If they had an even number of teams, I think they can keep teams from playing against lower division schools.

I haven't run the numbers, but I don't think you need to do even this. Each team plays 12 games. There are fourteen weeks in the regular season. Therefore, every team has at least one idle week, and every team that does not play in a conference with a CCG has two.

Keep all games between D-IA teams.

Agreed. With the rather short notice of a 12-game season, I was prepared to give teams the benefit of the doubt this year. But it shouldn't continue on through the foreseeable fture.

I do think all of the conference need to adopt a form of a championship game. The majority of the conferences have them right now. Some leagues are too big to play a complete round robin...the Pac-10 does it though. The leagues need to have a way to determine outright champs of each league to serve as automatic bids and then offer a few spots to at large teams.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. By NCAA rule, a conference needs a minimum of 12 members to have a CCG. Most of the conferences with fewer than 12 members have a full round-robin, and even the Pac-10 stepped up to the plate with one. The Big Ten, OTOH, is in a sort of no man's land -- too few members for a CCG, too many for a full round robin, and no realistic expansion plans.

It's honestly not as hard as it would seem to put this together...I think there are just a lot of stubborn people in charge. It's just a matter of how many teams they want to have involved and what they will do with the bowl games.

True. And now that Delany has admitted that the academics argument is the horseshit we already knew it to be, the playoff advocates should be underscoring that.

In truth, I'm not sure why ND is not leading the argument for a large playoff field with a significant number of at-large bids. I realize that ND generally is in the "traditionalist" camp among U.S. universities particularly when it comes to football. However, given the periodic attacks on ND's independent status, which is sacrosanct to ND, from the media and non-ND fans, it seems to me that's the format most likely to make ND's independence a non-issue.

Speaking of horseshit ...

Official site of horseshit.

Think these apologists are defensive? Nah ... just check out the "BCS news" under the BSU pic.

These guys make Jim Jones seem subtle.

Funny thing is, if a playoff ever finally manages to happen -- maybe in increments, with Van's plus-one and then four teams, etc. -- everyone who supports the current system is going to become even more of a complete fucking idiot.

Best analogy I can think of off hand is basketball "purists" in the early- to mid-50s who thought the shot clock was going to "ruin" the game.

Shoalzie wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:A playoff will never work with the current conference allignments, amount of d1 teams and OOC scheduling

Care to explain why you feel that way?

If they had an even number of teams, I think they can keep teams from playing against lower division schools. Keep all games between D-IA teams. I do think all of the conference need to adopt a form of a championship game. The majority of the conferences have them right now. Some leagues are too big to play a complete round robin...the Pac-10 does it though. The leagues need to have a way to determine outright champs of each league to serve as automatic bids and then offer a few spots to at large teams.

It's honestly not as hard as it would seem to put this together...I think there are just a lot of stubborn people in charge. It's just a matter of how many teams they want to have involved and what they will do with the bowl games.

If you say that you have to be ranked at a certain spot to reach the playoffs and thats where all the money is going, every conference will adopt the SEC's schedule making, every OOC will be at home and vs a team with no chance of putting up a fight
There will be far too much at stake to risk a potential spot in the playoffs with a tough OOC road game
119 or whatever the number is now is ridiculously high and the number of D1 teams should be closer to half that many (somewhere between 60-80)
current conference allignments will need to go, while some of the mid major conferences have a couple teams worthy at the top most of them are weak, and all of the major conferences have a team or two that also belong in a lower division

I like round numbers so I will cut D1 to 80 teams
Those 80 teams will then go in to 8 conferences based on geographical location
The NCAA will generate the schedules and each of those teams will play 12 games, 6 at home and 6 on the road
They will play all 9 of their conference foes plus 3 OOC games vs other teams within the top 80 (no dial a wins)
at the end of the 12 game season the top team from each conference goes to the playoffs, the bottom team goes to the lower division and the top 8 from that division step up to the top division the next year.
at the end you will have 2 teams play 15 games
You can also cut D1 to 64 teams and still use 8 divisions, have 10 game regular seasons (5 home, 5 away) and then take the top 2 teams from each division and put them in opposite sides of a 16 team playoff tree, that way if one region has the 2 best teams they can still play one another for the title and you lower the total amount of games for the teams in the final to 14

There is no way for an 8 or even 16 team playoff to work when you have 100+ teams and some are playing d1aa and d2 teams, playing 7 and 8 home games a season while others are playing 6 home games and every week is a D1 squad on the other side of the field

SoCalTrjn wrote:If you say that you have to be ranked at a certain spot

Right, because rankings have never been used to determine a MNC. :roll:

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:A playoff will never work with the current conference allignments, amount of d1 teams and OOC scheduling

Care to explain why you feel that way?

If they had an even number of teams, I think they can keep teams from playing against lower division schools. Keep all games between D-IA teams. I do think all of the conference need to adopt a form of a championship game. The majority of the conferences have them right now. Some leagues are too big to play a complete round robin...the Pac-10 does it though. The leagues need to have a way to determine outright champs of each league to serve as automatic bids and then offer a few spots to at large teams.

It's honestly not as hard as it would seem to put this together...I think there are just a lot of stubborn people in charge. It's just a matter of how many teams they want to have involved and what they will do with the bowl games.

If you say that you have to be ranked at a certain spot to reach the playoffs and thats where all the money is going, every conference will adopt the SEC's schedule making, every OOC will be at home and vs a team with no chance of putting up a fight
There will be far too much at stake to risk a potential spot in the playoffs with a tough OOC road game
119 or whatever the number is now is ridiculously high and the number of D1 teams should be closer to half that many (somewhere between 60-80)
current conference allignments will need to go, while some of the mid major conferences have a couple teams worthy at the top most of them are weak, and all of the major conferences have a team or two that also belong in a lower division

I like round numbers so I will cut D1 to 80 teams
Those 80 teams will then go in to 8 conferences based on geographical location
The NCAA will generate the schedules and each of those teams will play 12 games, 6 at home and 6 on the road
They will play all 9 of their conference foes plus 3 OOC games vs other teams within the top 80 (no dial a wins)
at the end of the 12 game season the top team from each conference goes to the playoffs, the bottom team goes to the lower division and the top 8 from that division step up to the top division the next year.
at the end you will have 2 teams play 15 games
You can also cut D1 to 64 teams and still use 8 divisions, have 10 game regular seasons (5 home, 5 away) and then take the top 2 teams from each division and put them in opposite sides of a 16 team playoff tree, that way if one region has the 2 best teams they can still play one another for the title and you lower the total amount of games for the teams in the final to 14

There is no way for an 8 or even 16 team playoff to work when you have 100+ teams and some are playing d1aa and d2 teams, playing 7 and 8 home games a season while others are playing 6 home games and every week is a D1 squad on the other side of the field

I don't think it has to be anywhere near that complicated. Simply put in a 16-team playoff, with seven automatic bids (winners of each of the six BCS conferences, plus the highest-ranked conference champ from the non-BCS conferences). Nine bids are at-large. (Truth is, I'd prefer that zero bids were automatic, but that proposal would never fly.)

With that many at-large bids, teams could afford as many as two, or perhaps in some cases three, losses and still qualify for the playoffs. If anything, that opens the door for more adventurous OOC scheduling than we currently see.

anything based on rankings (which is likely where the at large bids would come from) is going to keep OOC scheduling the way it is or make it worse. When you now only have 16 teams getting all the post season money instead of 60, you honestly think that schools will be adventurous? The only way it may work is if there is a provision in the rule that states that you have to have to play 6 road games and you can not play any 1aa or d2 teams and still qualify for the playoffs

If you make a playoff where only conference champs are guaranteed a spot and fill in the rest with a couple of at large bids then it doesn't matter who schedules what, all that matters is winning your conference.

There are 5 BCS conferences and 6 other non-BCS conferences together with the Independents makes 12 add 4 at large bids and you have a 16 team conference. If you want to break it down to an 8 team playoff allow conferences with championships to use those games as measuing sticks and force the conferences without suck a game to do an inter conference game to get in. Big 10 and MAC, Pac 10 and WAC, that would create about 6 teams and the other 2 spots go to at large teams.

With such a system there is no value to the poll system, and no room for bitching if you don't make it to the championship game.

Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports came up with a pretty solid system...

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug ... &type=lgns

if schools are still left to make their own schedules, most will take the cowards route and schedule zero OOC games vs teams with a shot at beating them, especially if its a winner takes all kind of game. Why risk the health of your players in a game vs a top tier OOC opponent when there is NOTHING to gain by playing the game?
If they schedule any tougher teams, it will be 1 out of 4 games with the other three be so weak that you laugh when you the game on the schedule.
The only way a playoff works is if the NCAA generates the schedules and everyone has equal amounts of road and home games

SoCalTrjn wrote:anything based on rankings (which is likely where the at large bids would come from) is going to keep OOC scheduling the way it is or make it worse. When you now only have 16 teams getting all the post season money instead of 60, you honestly think that schools will be adventurous? The only way it may work is if there is a provision in the rule that states that you have to have to play 6 road games and you can not play any 1aa or d2 teams and still qualify for the playoffs

SoCalTrjn wrote:if schools are still left to make their own schedules, most will take the cowards route and schedule zero OOC games vs teams with a shot at beating them, especially if its a winner takes all kind of game. Why risk the health of your players in a game vs a top tier OOC opponent when there is NOTHING to gain by playing the game?
If they schedule any tougher teams, it will be 1 out of 4 games with the other three be so weak that you laugh when you the game on the schedule.
The only way a playoff works is if the NCAA generates the schedules and everyone has equal amounts of road and home games

A few points in response:

- I think going to a 16-team field will help if there are a sufficient number of at-large bids. In that big a field, a single loss certainly wouldn't be fatal, and even two losses probably wouldn't be. I agree that creampuff OOC scheduling right now is a problem. About the only big OOC games you see anymore either: (a) involve Notre Dame; or (b) are games between state rivals mandated by a state legislature (e.g., Florida-Florida State). That's why tOSU-Texas was such a big deal, and it became even bigger when both schools happened to be at or near the top of their game when the games were actually played.

- I agree that there should be a 6 road/6 home game schedule for every team, with one exception: I would allow teams to play a maximum of two neutral field games per year in place of one road and/or one home game. If a team played two neutral field games, they would substitute for one road and one home game. Ironically, the biggest opponents to such a proposal would be the smaller teams that stand to play more home games under this proposal, in that they'll lose some gate revenue.

- I also agree that there should be a rule prohibiting any team from playing a 1-AA or Division II school and qualifying for the playoff. But that can be accomplished without the drastic changes you suggest.

The idea here is to make a playoff as palatable as possible. Draconian changes such as those you suggest won't accomplish that. In this regard, although I know you hate college basketball, it provides a good example of what I believe will happen. Every year there is some bitching about certain teams being left out of the tournament. But the bitching ends once the tournament begins, and in the end nobody disputes that the tournament winner is the national champion. The teams that get left out never really had a very good shot at winning the whole thing anyway.

Terry, nobody gives a shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The MNC was played last night!!!

Does your simple brain have a thought on it?

420 wrote:Terry, nobody gives a shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Considering that I didn't start the topic, the thread is already on its second page, and I'm not the only one to respond . . .

The MNC was played last night!!!

Thanks for that update, Mr. Allen. But last time I checked, there will be a college football season next year, and in years to follow, as well.