SpideRico- I agree with you to an extent and here are some things to think about. You say the tide is turning in favor of the Big 10, I really don't know where you see that. 1 win in the last 2 New Years Day of bowl games does not make the B1G look good. Ohio State and Penn State issues make the conference look as bad as any other conference. As far as the cyclical argument I can go with you but the game and the landscape has completely changed and has changed forever. Money, TV, facilities, recruiting nonsense that goes on with ESPN and those announcements at games all contribute to a game that will never go back to what it was. You have to be flashy, have flashy coaches to get the top recruits, top notch facilities, and be willing to bend the rules. I am not saying I agree with it all but it seems like thats they way it is now. In the B1G honestly the only flashy big name national coach is Meyer. Hoke is on his way but that's about it. Again, I hate that it has come to this but it is the way our society has become. The B1G has to change and I do think Urban Meyer will make the conference change much like Spurrier made the SEC change.
Here are some Playoff Questions that Come to Mind
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
Golfer
Well-Known Member
On the OP's thoughts, I think this ultimately will lead to better games, stronger non-conference games, if you will.
I think we will eventually be rewarded with better college football, and I think Iowa stands a better chance to be a factor under the new system.
This assumes that the coaches poll, or coaches input into the selection committee is removed. In many ways Boise State was ahead of its time, by necessity, in non-conference games.
A 7-5 Iowa is easier to take if we schedule better non-conference opponents.
Someone commented in the other thread, that the playoff is a back end solution when the problem needs addressed on the front end. I agree, but further think this will work its way into a front end solution. Eventually.
I think we will eventually be rewarded with better college football, and I think Iowa stands a better chance to be a factor under the new system.
This assumes that the coaches poll, or coaches input into the selection committee is removed. In many ways Boise State was ahead of its time, by necessity, in non-conference games.
A 7-5 Iowa is easier to take if we schedule better non-conference opponents.
Someone commented in the other thread, that the playoff is a back end solution when the problem needs addressed on the front end. I agree, but further think this will work its way into a front end solution. Eventually.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Boise State, LOL.
Clonehomer
Well-Known Member
Jon, I need a little clarification. Are you saying that if the Big10 and PAC12 champs finish 3 and 4, they will still meet in the Rose bowl? Then the 1 and 2 traps would have to also play in the first round? It seems that is setting up for a very anti-climatic championship game.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
I don't think that's right.
Golfer
Well-Known Member
This sin't in the proposal that was released. Unless there is more than what I saw, I don'r believe this is accurate.
Golfer
Well-Known Member
For someone who loves college football as much as you, albeit "traditional" college football, you should really appreciate what BSU did to the quality of early season viewing, and the excitement they added for several seasons near the finish.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Totally not that.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
There is nothing good about Boise State.
Clonehomer
Well-Known Member
That's what I thought, but Jon wrote if the Rose had a semifinal game and both the big ten and PAC12 had teams in the top 4, the Rose would host that game. I didn't know if I missed that, or if they'd have to be also seeded 2 and 3 or 1 and 4.
