26.Jun.2012 College Football Playoff

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Four team playoff system just announced.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8099187/ncaa-presidents-approve-four-team-college-football-playoff-beginning-2014

"A four-team playoff doesn't go too far; it goes just the right amount," said Virginia Tech president Charles Sterger. "We are very pleased with this arrangement, even though some issues … remain to be finalized."

Doesn't go too far now, but when are people ever content leaving well enough alone? When the SEC has 4 teams in, when the selection committee screws the small guy because their fan base doesn't travel well, or when the #5 team beat the #4 team on the field, then we'll see if it's "just the right amount".

This doesn't really affect OSU since the odds of them finishing in the top four are close to zero. It affects them indirectly via their arch rival, though. Meaning, Beaver fans are in for more angst since the Ducks now only have to finish 4th to have a shot at the National Title. Their odds just increased.

This is also another step in the college football death bed (though I am sure it'll be wildly popular for a few years until its flaws are exposed). A playoff will generate huge largess, especially for major programs, and with it more "pay for play" arguments (and everything deliterious, such as recruiting scandals, that follows big money). For the small guy, making a meaningful bowl just became more difficult. Why? Because this increases the number of haves. Borderline top 10 teams can now become elite (i.e. the battle will be between ranking 4 and 5 instead of 2 and 3). By increasing the haves, fandome becomes more difficult for everyone else.

Jump to Bottom
  • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    The odds of anyone getting to the title game just increased, including OSU, though our odds of getting there are still incredibly small. That Fiesta Bowl team under Erickson might have done it.

    But a 4 team playoff is just a start. Its the first step in getting out from under the BCS siliness.

    The four will be expanded to 8 and the 8 to 16.

    In the end, the Boise States will have their day in court.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      The odds of anyone getting to the title game just increased, including OSU

      No, this is my point, it just became harder for OSU due to a variety of reasons.

      1. Selection committee decides who goes, and they will not take a small market team that doesn’t travel well.
      2. The big programs have an advantage because it is a self-perpetuating design. The big programs bring in big money, so the committee will have a bias toward them.
      3. Teams who are ranked 10-5 yearly (e.g. Wisconsin, BSU, etc) just became “haves”, meaning they are now legit NT contenders. While this might look to increase the odds of every team moving up, it actually doesn’t do that. Maybe on paper, but in practice it just increases the gap between the haves and have nots because those top 10 teams are now all that matters, and since they’ll bring in revenue, recruits, etc it will be even harder for the have nots to move up.

      When it expands to 16 teams, then maybe it’ll be better for a team like OSU, since they can crack the top 20 here and there, but a 4 team playoff is only good for teams who are annually in the top 10. Nobody else will get any coverage, and their odds of a small market team making it into one of those games is zero–there is too much for advertisers to lose.

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Before there were two slots to fill…..now there are four. Before you had to be one of the top two (in the eyes of the committee) Now you can be one of four. The odds of being in the title picture have increased…..for everyone.

        And the 4 will become 8, etc.

        In any case, OSU needs to become a winning program again, or it doesnt matter how big the playoff is until the playoff expands to 128, and that aint likely…lol.

        So the whole matter is moot, right now, for us. But if the program can pull a Chip Kelley, then its good there’s a playoff.

        In any case, its good for ncaa football. The BCS bullshit was getting too deep.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

          Yes, I understand math. On paper the odds have increased. But in reality, the odds of mediocre teams making those games has decreased due to all the reasons mentioned. Your insistence on just looking at the odds doesn’t factor in the selection committee, the snow ball effect, etc. Humans can override paper odds with their bias and greed.

          • hellobeavers says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Your #1 and #2 reasons are essentially true today. There was bias when 2 teams competed for the NT and there will be bias with 4 teams competing. You understand math but you are arguing against for reasons that are no more true today than they were yesterday.

          • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            So bias is a part of it — it was worse before when you only had two choices. Increasing the choices gives everyone a better chance at getting in.

            Hell, bias is part of the basketball playoff structure and there you have a shit load of teams getting in.

            If humans do it, bias is involved.

            Bottom line — 4 is better than 2.

  • NCAA_viOlaton NCAA_viOlaton says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    My grandma used to tell me I was getting too big for my britches. I just wish she had gotten a chance to talk to the NCAA Presidents about college football before she passed.

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Who gets the money?

    The old system didn’t work for two reasons.
    1. It plain sucked.
    2. A self-appointed cartel worked under the false umbrella of NCAA anti-trust protection in order to take money from fans for meaningless bowl games.

    If any of us thinks that the Fiesta and their corruptions were a one off deal, think again. They just got caught.

    So who gets the money?

    On a side note, ha ha Boise! Big Least gets snubbed for the ACC. This Saturday is the deadline for withdrawal from the MWC. If Boise is going to the Big East as planned, then they have four days to say so. Right now it looks more like they could be going indy instead.

    Let the conference realignment talk begin anew! We only have four days!

  • HopefulBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    The major reason I hate this plan is because of the implementation of a selection committee. We now go from opinion polls deciding who plays for the national title to having an “expert committee” who will obviously have many of the biases that Angry pointed out when choosing teams. Another thing I hate is that this continues to reward teams for scheduling their local Directional University which already make up about 1/3 of the SEC schedules. Teams are going to continue to try scheduling themselves to 12-0 because there is absolutely no incentive to scheduling tough OOC games.

    I favor a system where conference champions get some sort of special consideration or even an automatic birth. For this to happen it would need to be at least 8 teams. Have your 6 BCS conference champions go (5 if you want to boot the Big East out) and then add 2 at large teams which can be decided by a committee, rankings, etc. The point being that in this scenario every BCS school has a legitimate shot to make it based entirely off of their play on the field. You could even use the four BCS bowls as the quarterfinals games, thus preserving the prestige in getting to one of those games.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      I tend to agree that 8 teams is a better model, but that brings even more money and more corruption/pay for play/recruiting violations, etc into the picture. Teams at #15 annually will see that with slight bending of the rules they can get to #8. I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the good thing about the current system is that you know only 5 teams have a shot. It keeps the other teams from cheating. It also makes the sport incredibly boring and predictable at the top (e.g. I didn’t even watch last years title game).

      I think the best strategy would be limiting scholarships on certain schools in fertile recruiting areas. Or, penalize a school that finishes in the top 10. For example, a team that wins the title only gets 70 schollies the following year. Isn’t this how the NBA lottery works? This would spread the talent and create more parity. The problem with the current setup is it’s self-perpetuating… a snowball. Nothing can stop USC, Ohio St, etc because they have huge geographic advantages. Now those same schools will be in the top 4 every year building upon those advantages. It’s bad for the sport as a whole.

      • HopefulBeav says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

        I like that idea of scholarship reductions a lot. That’s basically how every professional sport’s draft works (ie. the best teams are at the end of the draft order while the worst teams are at the top). Unfortunately that has about as good of a chance to happen as getting BDC to admit he’s a bad AD because the “heavy weight” schools would never allow it.

        Call me old fashioned, but I liked it when the ultimate goal for each school at the beginning of every year was to win their conference championship. That actually gave schools incentives to schedule tough OOC match ups in order to get themselves ready for the conference games that really mattered. For this reason I really wish some sort of emphasis would have been put on winning your conference.

        • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          I would buy you a beer for your second paragraph.

  • HopefulBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Something I don’t understand with all of this is what happens to the Rose Bowl? I read the report on ESPN.com but I didn’t fully understand what they meant by having three “contract” bowls and three “access” bowls. That sounds like they’re having six bowls for four teams to play in? Anyone understand this better?

  • 2 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

    This is a great topic to have a nice discussion about, and I have been giving it some thought Angry. I generally agree with basically everything you have been saying, but something dawned on me.

    There are 2 more seasons until this is taken into affect. That year Sean Mannion, Brandin Cooks, Scott Crighton, Dylan Wynn, Donnel Welch, Murphy, Etc. will all be seniors. That season is one that we are going to be extremely talented(for us) with tons of experience.

    Point being is, this seems like a great time for us to be peaking as a team. Maybe it won’t come to fruition but it might not be soo bad for Oregon State especially if we are able to have a break out year.

  • bone says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I’m not a big fan of the current playoff system. I still think that there are going to be teams who one could argue should be in the play off and will be left out. I think it should at least be 16 teams in a playoff.

  • alex says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I think you could have a decent system with 8 team playoff, but agree that 16 is ideal.

    The $1,000,000 question is whether the selection committee will be more, less, or equally biased than the current BCS formula. At least here you (presumably) don’t have the blatant conflict of interest in the form of the coaches vote, and the “my conference is the toughest” incentive.

    The way to do it right, with 4 teams, 8 teams, or 16 teams is to take the wiggle room out. Require a conference championship (or an undefeated season in the case of a tie and no championship game). Then you can let the selection committee work with that subset.

  • WFO WFO says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 7 votes)

    I think conference champions are the answer. If you wanna go to the big show,win your fuckin conference. End of conversation. You say your conference is so great,well we’ll find out when they play a team from another conference in the playoffs.

    I’ll also say until I’m blue in the face: If a team plays more than one D2 team in a season they are ineligible for the playoffs. If you and your conference are sooooooo awesome then you should be playing tough teams every weekend. Not three cupcakes in your stadium per season.

  • Fightingbeaver says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

    I believe getting out from under BCS control is a good thing. I also believe all future re-adjustments will end up with a total of 8 games not 16. But all in all, it won’t matter to OSU until we can be a top contender in our division period.

    2says, mentioned all the talent we are going to have in the near future. I agree. But remember talent is not the only factor in wining games. It takes a football program with a Head Coach that wants to get to the top. Right now we don’t have that caliber of coach. Riley, in his highest goal is to attain 6 wins and/or a toilet bowl berth.

    I think to get any where near the top of our division we need new, younger and more aggressive leadership from AD, Head Coach down to staff. We need energy, confidence and drive in our football programs leadership first……..the team players will gain the same from their leaders.

    • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)

      This whole thing that keeps getting repeated about Riley goal being to win 6 games is pretty stupid and baseless. Can we drop that and maybe instead people could criticize his motivational style if they think that’s the issue?

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

        It’s not purely rational, but it’s also not baseless. Jobs have their normal ups and downs. Sometimes pay and job security are the only motivating factors. Of course, that’s not always the case, and it changes from season to season and year to year.

        Riley’s contract has six wins as that baseline motivation. It is an egregious clause. If it was not negotiated by him, then Bobby D really has to go away for just giving away the house. It is very unlike Bobby D to make such concessions of his own volition. So it is rational to believe Riley asked for this clause out of a sense of guaranteeing job security.

        If that’s the case, then Riley set mediocrity as the bar for reward. It is neither stupid nor baseless to think this motivates him.

        • krogercomplete says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          (1) What does the clause say, and (2) was that the basis for fighting beaver’s comment about Riley’s highest goal being to attain a six win season?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

            (1) Go to a bowl, extend your (very long) contract by another year. It would be more palatable if the NCAA were to change the system to make seven wins the threshold for bowl participation. But I really think winning .667 of your regular season games should be the floor. .500 is a target for a new coach at NMSU or UTEP or UNLV, not OSU. That clause is (unintentionally) disrespectful of OSU and Mike Riley.
            (2) I have no idea. I also have no idea what MR’s highest goal is from day to day or year to year. There are seasons where I don’t know what any of his goals are… except to hopefully find an identity sometime during the year. That’s why I precluded my statement with the “any job” analogy. I was responding to two definitive statements, and it’s always irrational to use definitive statements.

            😉

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Is that the only bonus provision in the contract?

            I get your point that a contract like this has the potential to be a limiting factor in terms of motivation, if your only goals (or your primary goals) are money and/or job security, but I don’t take this clause as an explicit statement of Riley’s “highest goal.” Any coach would want the bonus provision tied to the lowest possible number of wins for purely financial reasons, but I don’t take that to mean they don’t actually want to win games. For example, if AD was stupid enough to let a coach negotiate a provision that says they get an extra million every year so long as they win one game, I don’t interpret that as the coach only wanting to win one game.

            This seems a fairly obvious concept, which is why I ask whether this clause is what Fightin’ was referring to, or whether there has been some other interview or Riley statement where he indicated he only wants 6 wins. Fightin can answer–i appreciate you don’t know what exactly he meant Jack.

        • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          Jack, I think it’s pretty common for college coaches to have it in their contract that they get and extension with a bowl game. It’s safe to conclude that BDC offered this in the contract with Riley. I doubt BDC came to Riley saying if he wins 8 games, he gets and extension, and then MR talked him down to 6. If you remember, other teams were calling for Riley to be their coach, and BDC worked up the contract to keep him at OSU. Riley didn’t set the bar in the contract. Based on what I can tell from Riley’s personality, he doesn’t seem as motivated by external rewards and he sets his own bar. If you think he sets it at six wins, then I guess you’ll be poo-pooing Riley until he’s gone, even if he wins 9.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            He’s going to win nine games again. He’s also going to win only four games again given time. He’s not an elite coach who bottoms out at “only” seven or eight wins and one losing season every decade.

            By all accounts, he is an elite person. And I think many of his fans find it hard to separate that from his coaching. I happen to think good people should always have good things happen to them. But that’s just not the way things work in this world. When you hope for the best, you have to prepare for the worst. That is the definition of optimism. Hoping for (or having faith in) the best occurring just because we think we’re good people is the height of foolishness. There’s a huge difference between being an optimist and being a fool.

            That being said, extensions doled out for .500 ball are ridiculously low rent. I would want a coach who would look at that clause and say, “You disrespect me by thinking I’m less than or barely a winner? I’m outta this crap hole!”

            But we both know it’s different than that.

            Don’t we?

      • Fightingbeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

        You are right…..though not stupid but stated wrong. Riley does not have any goals, period. He possesses nor conveys any motivation if that’s what you want to hear. Your name calling is rather juvenile anyway.

        • angry angry says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          His goal is to be a surrogate father.

        • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          Saying something someone said is ‘stupid’ isn’t name calling, but I will accept that it’s juvenile. You probably need to be on the staff or the team to make a conclusive statement on whether or not Riley is able to convey motivation.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            I tend to agree with the last part. Alot of the stuff that gets thrown around on the boards is subject to this very huge qualification (i.e. most of us are not actually there, “on the ground” so to speak to confirm what is or is not going on), but certain things are much more objectively obvious than others, and the outside observer has grounds to comment. Motivation, though, not so sure. This is just inherently difficult (or impossible) to evaluate from our position. Clearly, Riley is not coming out to the media and making bold predictions about how the team is going to do or how he wants the team to do, so he’s not setting the bar high in that sense (and he is obviously not motivating a signifant portion of the fan base), but whether he is a good motivator of players on the practice field, in the locker room, in the coaches office, etc., is not clear. Given how many variables go into winning and losing football games, you can’t just reason backward from poor results and conclude he must be a bad motivator.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Agree with all of this. But I also have to bring it full circle.

            Putting butts in seats and eyes on the TV is what gets PSA’s attention. Getting their attention is what leads to getting them committed and signed. Getting them committed and signed is what puts a better product on the field. A better product on the field leads to more wins. More wins means more butts are in the seats and more eyes are on the TV’s.

            Motivation can not only occur in one or two of the events in that cycle in order for it to run smoothly.

  • OSU4Life says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    This makes it much more likely whoregon will win a Natty. Now teams will have less time to prepare against them which will give them the edge. May the team that has the most money win!

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    OT… Ha ha ha ha ha ha… hee hee… ohhh… ha… hoo… hee?

    Oh gawd!!!!!!!!

    We’re next… aren’t we?

    Well crap on a stick!

    http://thegazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/throwback.jpg

  • bone says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Forget what I said about the 16 team bracket.

    I say you won’t be sure who is the best unless you have a round robin where every team plays every other team. The resulting records then seed 128 teams into play off in a double elimination bracket. That shouldn’t take more than a decade or two to complete.

  • Ronix1080 Ronix1080 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Ted Miller does a write up on the new playoff system and forgets to include the beavers in his argument. “With this new system, Washington and Oregon wouldn’t have been left out as they were in 2000 and 2001, respectively.” As Rodney Dangerfield famously said time and again “I don’t get no respect”

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Going to the Big House in 2015!

    • beaverbeliver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

      Who do you think will coach us in that game? I hope it is not Riley.

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Forgot link:
    http://www.osubeavers.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/062712aaa.html

    • NCAA_viOlation NCAA_viOlation says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      another link

      http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2012/06/oregon_state_sets_football_gam.html

    • hellobeavers says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Just in time for Oregon State to be breaking in a new QB.

      Mannion graduates in 2014. His replacement will likely be making his 2nd career start at Michigan. Ugh.

      • ObjCritic says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        Typically crafty Riley, go to a difficult venue with an inexperienced qb…

        • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          We will get killed. Hoke is the real deal and he is pulling in a unbelievable class of recruits. Nice road trip though.

          • wannabeav says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Utah got a home and home with Michigan, and Colorado is playing in Ann Arbor too

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Hail mary from Kordell Stewart. Nightmare for the Michigan snobs.

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Funny comment on O-Live, “this loss will look much better than Sac St.” Haha.

          • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            So no visit to Corvallis? Booby D strikes again. He should get a job managing a slaughterhouse.

          • numbers says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Seriously, Utah can get a home and home but we can’t? Lame fricken Lame.

      • VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

        This is a ridiculous statement. How many variables are there in just one year of college football, let alone three?
        This is a critical site but that’s about as pessimistic and negative as it gets. STFU

        • Beavergopher Beavergopher says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          Given the track record, this is stark realism. Last non-conf. road victory against a power team?
          I like teams playing real opponents, but you have to win one at least once per decade.

        • hellobeavers says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          Was that directed at me? I made an assumption that Mannion would be our starting QB for the next 3 years. Then in 2015 we will likely have a new QB who will likely be making one of his first starts at the Big House. Not that far fetched.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            It’s actually spot on. You forgot to add that according to OSU’s (lack of) luck, Michigan will have the #1 draft pick at QB, and he’ll be a senior.

      • numbers says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Can Riley recruit a QB now by promoting the Michigan Start? Probably not…

  • steveEbeaver says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    OT but an article about northern baseball teams and how to get more to Omaha. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/sports/in-college-ball-northern-teams-look-for-help.html?_r=1&src=rechp

    Other than adjusting RPI for road teams there’s not alot that can be done.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

      I’ve thought for a long time that academic schedules have lagged in terms of a changing world. They were established in an agrarian world with an expectation for labor to be available during growth and harvest periods. But how many kids come from the farm these days?

      I have no idea about the logistcs and costs involved, but I’ve often thought universities should move to a true quarter system (those on semesters would move to trimesters). For NCAA eligibility purposes, a kid would need to be enrolled in three of the four quarters full time (two of three). But they could participate in extracurricular activities in which they represent their schools in the one period when they aren’t a full time student.

      Imagine football players attending full time terms in the winter, spring and summer quarters. Then they can attend part time or just take the fall quarter off while they play football. Frosh would have a different rule applied because there should be a pattern of higher learning success established before any SA can just come to play a sport. So full time enrollment would be required for anyone who has not shown a full year (three or two terms) of academic advancement.

      Now, if this was the rule across the NCAA member schools, sports normally scheduled for summer months can be participatory across the board. Baseball and softball players can take the summer term off to play ball. T&F can also move to the summer months.

      This would also make those sports concurrent with professional leagues, which would make interest in them rise. Access would also be more viable since weather would be less restrictive and K-12 kids and families can more readily travel.

      Just spit-balling here. I know it will never happen, but I can dream.

      OT further… Trevor Bauer is scheduled to start for Arizona tomorrow night.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        They could use their redshirt year to get ahead on classes/take harder classes and then take a lighter load during the season. That would give them 4 years to complete 3 years of coursework. They could enroll early, too (like Katz and a few others have done), and take advantage of Bridge to get a few classes under their belt. If they could get the course load down to 2 or 3 easier classes during the season that would help.

        I was actually dissuaded when I asked to take six courses per quarter. They told me 4 was generally the max. I said I wanted to graduate early and felt I could handle 6 if I just sacrificed free time. Well, I graduated in 2.5 years magna cum laude. I know firsthand six courses per term is doable. I think those on redshirt should do that.

  • wannabeav says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    It would be ironic for the Big 10 to drop out of baseball and hold a regional tournament at precisely the same time college football has moved from a regional to national playoff model. OSU has shown it can be done. What this really shows is that the national profile of college baseball is on a steep climb up, which is good for OSU’s overall collegiate visibility.

  • brownale9000 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    On the brightish side, Oregon now would have to beat 2 teams with elite level speed and DLine play to win a MNC. (not even counting USC)

    So that’s kinda nice.

    Since they can’t even beat one team with truly elite speed and DLine with their current system.

  • firebeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Like my dad always says, “You would complain if they hung you with a new rope.” Angry, what in your opinion is the best playoff system??

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      16 teams (this keeps the entire top 25 involved) and reduced scholarships based on final standings. This spreads out scholies so you can’t have self-perpetuating dynasties. Conference champs get an auto birth into the playoff (this removes the “committee” bias).

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

      Ummm… I think I would complain if anyone hung me… with anything.

      16 teams is best. I don’t know about graduated ship limits. But I think 85 is far too many for one team. Make it at least sub-70 (is 1AA 68 right now?). I think that many plus the same 20 walk-ons is fair.

      • Numbers says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I disagree. I’m in favor of limiting roster sizes. But I feel every team member(walk ons) should be full riders. The programs are making money hand over fist on these guys. I extremely disagree with pay to play but I am very much in favor of scholarships for all players along with very high academic standards.

  • beaverkman beaverkman says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I would say 16 is best too, and like the schollies limits. But I would get rid of the OOC and just make it the conference schedule, to keep it from having to play 15 games, no way would the teams hold up for that long of a season. Also, the playoff system means you would have to beat three top 10 teams to win the NT. Most teams other than the top 5 have enough talent and epth to achieve that.

  • ean says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    I like the 8 team playoff with 6 autoberths for the major conference champs and 2 at large with an automatic qualifier for a non-BCS school in the top 8. When you factor in conference championship games it is a 12-14 team playoff anyway.

    • WFO WFO says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I think that scenario is perfect. 8 teams is plenty and it gives the SEC whiners and the Boise States their shot.

  • brownale9000 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Unrelated.

    The NBA draft is this afternoon, any predictions on when/if Jared Cunningham gets drafted?

    Personally, I think he’s a pretty solid NBA prospect and I’d take him near the end of the 1st round, early 2nd.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I was going to say 25 to Memphis. But the Boston news last night has led to Detroit looking to do the same thing. And Detroit is in a better position to move up as far as 24 for an additional first round pick. Now I’m thinking Boston might stand pat and take him at 22 if Ainge values him as a first round get.

      • Grape says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Danny Ainge = my highschool teachers brother

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Well now, I’m getting tired of Bronco poaching Oregon kids. He already has the best O-lineman in the state in Kearsley. And Leavitt is a solid DB. Now Tanner Shipley gets an offer, and he just up and commits.

    I’m not going to get too upset because BYU is one of those “dream” schools for a certain segment of society. But how does this play to my constant harping that we need to build a team based on all the local talent we can draw?

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives