[Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to theBig-XII (sort of)

[Scott R Lawson]

Sort of like when the Cowboys and 49ers won the Super Bowl every year
for what seemed like a decade...

Scott in NY



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Reichenbach [mailto:reich at inetnebr.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Scott R Lawson; husker at tssi.com; nickchevance at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to
theBig-XII (sort of)

There is already a playoff, with two teams qualifying for the
playoff.  Actually, increasing the size of the playoff probably
diminishes the likelihood that the best team or the most deserving
team wins.  The more you expand the playoff, the less well a team
must do to qualify.  That diminishes the incentive to play a tough
schedule, diminishes the meaning of each regular season game, and
puts less deserving teams in a plae to win the championship.  In
some of the pro sports, a team that finishes barely .500 or even
worse can go on a streak and win the championship.  Is that better
than what we have now?  It isn't clear that it is.

> From husker-bounces at tssi.com  Fri Jan 16 09:55:24 2009
> Delivered-To: reich at inebraska.com
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on
romaine.tssi.com
> X-Spam-Level: 
> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00
autolearn=ham
> 	version=3.2.1
> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com;
s=gamma;
>
h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
> 	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
> 	:content-transfer-encoding;
> 	bh=lGtrfmj1TrXJnLtB0D/14yByvp0sJz5/R/l+MKB8FC4=;
>
b=XbDGfsXHhYy6F2g2D3qHgT/4qvGGP/yQZsmuUUHxV548bg1vhlzE++W3TrCj/mKaUt
>
IL8OO9enQXu+42JlaAhgwKG4WLAg6NLFkmeU7z5E6/jerCNJMK0eMecJB/++C6019Kfq
> 	qy1uzmxqy1qc7Fd3Y524PYlxvs0nIORKz1PCU=
> DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
>
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
> 	:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
>
b=jqmJp+4I/tt6ZNBAbxtzvMNE5O62AHDRUeNLCu9g/sAYodOyd7uw60pBajUHesAxoL
>
o8qX09xM6KUF0nPehvlFlDs45O3XAem3jcaW+RtU8kEwLRT85LLF3/TsMoWXXISWb2kc
> 	rEYh0RD63U8xkyhXEENg9ln2wMToKjZ1yp0/Q=
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:54:08 -0600
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Congress to investigate BCS - bring it back to 
> 	theBig-XII (sort of)
> From: Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>
> To: Scott R Lawson <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu>, Husker List
<husker at tssi.com>
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Cc: 
> X-BeenThere: husker at tssi.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
> List-Id: The Husker List <husker.tssi.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>,
> 	<mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/private/husker>
> List-Post: <mailto:husker at tssi.com>
> List-Help: <mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=help>
> List-Subscribe: <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>,
> 	<mailto:husker-request at tssi.com?subject=subscribe>
> X-pstn-neptune: 0/0/0.00/0
> X-pstn-levels:     (S:95.11916/99.90000 CV:99.9000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108
M:94.5022 C:99.5902 )
> 
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Scott R Lawson
> <SLawson at uamail.albany.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Seriously though, I know this topic is a sore one for many and has
> > probably been beat to death already, but can anyone enlighten me as
to
> > why the current system could not be replaced with a playoff system?
I
> > know one of the old arguments was having these kids playing too many
> > games, but that seems silly when you see divisions that DO have
playoffs
> > seem to manage just fine with 15-16 games. Also, I know the bowls
want
> > their revenue, but wouldn't two or three more rounds of playoffs
tied
> > into existing bowl games make them even MORE money?
> >
> > Scott in NY
> 
> I suspect there will be others to pick at this carcass, but I'm
> willing to take a few whacks at it.
> 
> The biggest structural drawback to a playoff system is the fact that
> two of the major conferences don't have playoffs - Pac10 and Big11.
> At least with the way the Big11 does things (I only assume the same
> happens in the Pac10) where not every team plays each other team in
> the conference, there's gonna be questions about who the conference
> champ is.  I've heard that the Big11 has absolutely no desire to do
> anything about that, and while I haven't heard anything about Pac10
> feelings, they really haven't had to worry about it - its just been
> USC lately.
> 
> But if you can resolve that issue, then the rest of the (non)arguments
> come into play - it'll destroy the bowl system, it'll take the kids
> out of school for too long, how do conferences share revenue from
> these games, will the fans show up week after week, etc., etc.  The
> only thing - and really the only thing - I want to see come out of
> this if we do end up with some sort of playoff (8 teams seems the
> best), is that the higher seeded team gets to play at home during the
> playoffs, just like in the pros.  No moving everyone south to where a
> greater advantage is given to a team playing closer to home (or as USC
> did, playing in their neighborhood).  Make some of the warm teams move
> north and put up with cold games in cold stadiums.  I know, I know,
> makes for lousy TV, but after all, its football.  It wasn't intended
> to be an indoor sport.  Or at least I don't think so.
> 
> Nick
> -- 
> "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
thing."
> Anatole France
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>