NCAA Football 2008-2009 Season Thread

**BCWWF** · 12-10-2008, 11:21 PM

VEL, you have a lot of flaws in there. I'm not sure if you just forgot or never knew, but:

1. Technically the four biggest bowls are: Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange. After that, probably the Cotton and Capitol One are the biggest.

2. The biggest flaw is probably in the affiliations. Would you arbitrarily seed the four big bowls, 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7 etc? Or would you still use the current format, Big Ten vs. Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl, for example?

Either way would not fly. If you ranked the teams, you break the bowl affiliations, which we have seen is a pretty big deal -- especially the Rose Bowl, and to some extent the Sugar and Fiesta.

If you used the regular affiliations, you run the risk of the top two teams being in the Big Ten and Pac-10, thus making the rest of the playoffs unnecessary.

The "popular" theory spread by ESPN and the like is the Plus-1 method, but I think there are as many flaws in that as anything.

1. You don't need an added game every year. If there are two undefeated teams, why do they have to beat the "best" of the one-loss teams before playing each other?
2. Would you have the four BCS bowls as usual, and the 1-2 teams after BCS week play each other? OR would you add two additional semifinal bowls and keep the BCS national championship? Method one wouldn't really make sense. Method two would dilute the four remaining BCS bowls to the point where they aren't even significant.

I could go on. I understand these aren't well stated; I wrote this all out on a different thread and just kind of threw it together here.

12-10-2008, 11:21 PM	#34
BCWWF The People's Member Posts: 18,092	VEL, you have a lot of flaws in there. I'm not sure if you just forgot or never knew, but: 1. Technically the four biggest bowls are: Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange. After that, probably the Cotton and Capitol One are the biggest. 2. The biggest flaw is probably in the affiliations. Would you arbitrarily seed the four big bowls, 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7 etc? Or would you still use the current format, Big Ten vs. Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl, for example? Either way would not fly. If you ranked the teams, you break the bowl affiliations, which we have seen is a pretty big deal -- especially the Rose Bowl, and to some extent the Sugar and Fiesta. If you used the regular affiliations, you run the risk of the top two teams being in the Big Ten and Pac-10, thus making the rest of the playoffs unnecessary. The "popular" theory spread by ESPN and the like is the Plus-1 method, but I think there are as many flaws in that as anything. 1. You don't need an added game every year. If there are two undefeated teams, why do they have to beat the "best" of the one-loss teams before playing each other? 2. Would you have the four BCS bowls as usual, and the 1-2 teams after BCS week play each other? OR would you add two additional semifinal bowls and keep the BCS national championship? Method one wouldn't really make sense. Method two would dilute the four remaining BCS bowls to the point where they aren't even significant. I could go on. I understand these aren't well stated; I wrote this all out on a different thread and just kind of threw it together here.