|
Post by nabeav on Dec 6, 2016 15:15:26 GMT -8
Playoffs don't always result in the "best" team winning the championship. Golden State was the best team in the NBA last year, but Cleveland got hot, Draymond got suspended, Harrison Barnes went cold, and the Cavs took the title. New England was 16-0 in 2007, but Eli Manning magically escaped a sure sack and David Tyree pinned a ball to his helmet and the Giants got the Lombardi Trophy. Playoffs make for great stories because teams that don't necessarily "deserve" to win get on magical runs (NC State in 1983, the USA Hockey team in 1980, etc) and come home with an improbable championship. Those stories generate fan interest...we all love seeing that because we all like rooting for the underdogs. At this point in the season, Alabama is the best team. I'm not even sure there's a debate about that. If you want to get into a debate about being a "champion" when you don't have to prove it on the field, I'll go along with that. Under the old system, people were arbitrarily deemed "champions" despite not winning an actual championship game....which is why Alabama claims like four or five "national championships" that almost nobody else recognizes. Also drunkandstoopidbeav asked if anyone wished our 2000 season would've ended with a Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of a shot at a national championship, and I'm not entirely sure what that means, since neither of those options were viable in 2001. We didn't win the Pac-12, and there was no playoff. Now, if you're asking me if I would've rather played in the Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of the Fiesta Bowl vs. ND....you're damn right I would have. And I know I'm in the minority on this, but when Gary Andersen delivers a Pac12 title, if given the choice between playing the Big10 champ in the Rose Bowl or being part of 4 team playoff and playing Florida State in the Orange Bowl or Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl, I'd still take the Rose Bowl. That's the one I want. To quote Harry in Home Alone: "That's the one, Marv. That's the silver tuna."
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 6, 2016 15:58:30 GMT -8
Playoffs don't always result in the "best" team winning the championship. Golden State was the best team in the NBA last year, but Cleveland got hot, Draymond got suspended, Harrison Barnes went cold, and the Cavs took the title. New England was 16-0 in 2007, but Eli Manning magically escaped a sure sack and David Tyree pinned a ball to his helmet and the Giants got the Lombardi Trophy. Playoffs make for great stories because teams that don't necessarily "deserve" to win get on magical runs (NC State in 1983, the USA Hockey team in 1980, etc) and come home with an improbable championship. Those stories generate fan interest...we all love seeing that because we all like rooting for the underdogs. At this point in the season, Alabama is the best team. I'm not even sure there's a debate about that. If you want to get into a debate about being a "champion" when you don't have to prove it on the field, I'll go along with that. Under the old system, people were arbitrarily deemed "champions" despite not winning an actual championship game....which is why Alabama claims like four or five "national championships" that almost nobody else recognizes. Also drunkandstoopidbeav asked if anyone wished our 2000 season would've ended with a Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of a shot at a national championship, and I'm not entirely sure what that means, since neither of those options were viable in 2001. We didn't win the Pac-12, and there was no playoff. Now, if you're asking me if I would've rather played in the Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of the Fiesta Bowl vs. ND....you're damn right I would have. And I know I'm in the minority on this, but when Gary Andersen delivers a Pac12 title, if given the choice between playing the Big10 champ in the Rose Bowl or being part of 4 team playoff and playing Florida State in the Orange Bowl or Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl, I'd still take the Rose Bowl. That's the one I want. To quote Harry in Home Alone: "That's the one, Marv. That's the silver tuna." Man, this is a great post. The fascination with the playoffs is the everything about them. 6th seed NFL teams being super bowl champions, a gaggle of college hockey kids knocking off the Goliath. People get wrapped up in "getting it right" and lose sight of the whole thing being an event. Of course I yearn for the glory of the Rose Bowl. it is what most (I dunno, older than 30 or so) fans REALLY recognize as the goal. I still believe it has been diluted though the BCS era which was horrific for college football. My point still remains IF you are going to be bent on doing something, at least do it right. 4 teams ain't right.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 6, 2016 22:14:39 GMT -8
Playoffs don't always result in the "best" team winning the championship. Golden State was the best team in the NBA last year, but Cleveland got hot, Draymond got suspended, Harrison Barnes went cold, and the Cavs took the title. New England was 16-0 in 2007, but Eli Manning magically escaped a sure sack and David Tyree pinned a ball to his helmet and the Giants got the Lombardi Trophy. Playoffs make for great stories because teams that don't necessarily "deserve" to win get on magical runs (NC State in 1983, the USA Hockey team in 1980, etc) and come home with an improbable championship. Those stories generate fan interest...we all love seeing that because we all like rooting for the underdogs. At this point in the season, Alabama is the best team. I'm not even sure there's a debate about that. If you want to get into a debate about being a "champion" when you don't have to prove it on the field, I'll go along with that. Under the old system, people were arbitrarily deemed "champions" despite not winning an actual championship game....which is why Alabama claims like four or five "national championships" that almost nobody else recognizes. Also drunkandstoopidbeav asked if anyone wished our 2000 season would've ended with a Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of a shot at a national championship, and I'm not entirely sure what that means, since neither of those options were viable in 2001. We didn't win the Pac-12, and there was no playoff. Now, if you're asking me if I would've rather played in the Rose Bowl vs. Purdue instead of the Fiesta Bowl vs. ND....you're damn right I would have. And I know I'm in the minority on this, but when Gary Andersen delivers a Pac12 title, if given the choice between playing the Big10 champ in the Rose Bowl or being part of 4 team playoff and playing Florida State in the Orange Bowl or Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl, I'd still take the Rose Bowl. That's the one I want. To quote Harry in Home Alone: "That's the one, Marv. That's the silver tuna." In the post directly prior to my post someone said they'd take a Rose Bowl over a playoff game. We finished 4/5 in the polls. Purdue finished 13/14 in the polls and did play in the Rose Bowl. I wrote the post in a thread about expanded playoffs... if it was a choice between being in the NC playoff mix or playing a next level ranked Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl I'd go for the chance at a NC in an expanded playoff system over the Rose Bowl in that scenario any time. IF there had been a 8-12 team playoff at the time, we'd likely been in the mix
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 6, 2016 22:43:40 GMT -8
The radical solution ... that addresses concerns and gets to the best compromise for determining a D1 Champion in football:
1. Create 8 conferences with 10 teams each 2. Everybody plays everybody in conference - 9 conference games 3. 11 game regular season - no byes. Start 1st week in September. 4. 2 non-conference games for each team - 80 teams have to play among the 80 teams (no D2, D3, etc.) 5. Best conference record wins the conference. If two teams tie, best overall record wins the conference. Still tied, then modified Kansas plan playoff first week after end of regular season. each team gets four possession from 25. In at least two of the possession if they score a TD they must go for 2 point conversion. Competition to determine champ, no poll rankings or subjective guess. 6. 8 conference champions qualify for playoffs - no at-large teams. If Auto Zone wants to sponsor a bowl game with 2nd place teams from two conferences, great. 7. 3 rounds to find the champ, starting 1st or 2nd week in December. Top rank 4 conference champs host opening round game. 8. Semifinals on News Year Eve or News Year Day. 9. Championship game on Saturday evening 2nd Saturday after January 1.
Biggest problem - realignment to create the 8 conferences Secondary problem - scheduling non conference games
Additional thought ... revenue for home game ticket sales (SEC 4 ooc games now). Maybe provide an option for another non-conference game that does not count in the record for determining conference champion in ties; which means add a bye week for those that don't want the 3rd ooc game.
Which 48 teams are now not D-1? The problem with this scenario is that un less you manipulate the conferences every year to create 8 equal conferences every year and things fall into place exactly as planned you'll likely never get the 8 best teams into the playoffs. You'll more often get 5 or 6 that truly deserve to be there and 2-3 that would very likely get smacked by several teams that didn't get in.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 6, 2016 22:51:32 GMT -8
Four worked in 2014. Four worked in 2015. Did four not work this year?
I think that you can make arguments about the order. I personally think that Alabama and Clemson should be playing in Atlanta and Ohio State and Washington should be playing in Glendale, but that would almost make Alabama a road team, not really be fair to Alabama. And it would make the second-best team, Ohio State, a road team in Glendale, not really fair to Ohio State. So, I also understand switching the third and fourth best teams to give Alabama a home field advantage and to eliminate Washington's home field advantage.
I like four much more than two. Gives Pac-12 teams a chance. More than four waters down the season too much.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 7, 2016 11:48:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Dec 7, 2016 13:05:01 GMT -8
Which 48 teams are now not D-1? The problem with this scenario is that un less you manipulate the conferences every year to create 8 equal conferences every year and things fall into place exactly as planned you'll likely never get the 8 best teams into the playoffs. You'll more often get 5 or 6 that truly deserve to be there and 2-3 that would very likely get smacked by several teams that didn't get in. 1. COMPROMISE was a key word used in my proposal - no proposal is PERFECT for determining a champion ... any form of playoffs or any form of subjective ranking ... both have shortfalls. 2. I personally find playoffs in sports the most interesting and intriguing ... and typically if the size of the "regular season" is representative, then the best teams typically rise to the top ... and have the best chance to win given the advantages of byes, home field, etc. 3. The CURRENT conference alignment is not perfectly balanced ... so why would I expect the newly modified 8 conferences of 10 teams to be perfect? 4. Your example of Stanford and Cal is interesting, except for the fact that Stanford and Cal would likely be in the same 10 team conference given most factors that would be used to align the new 10 team conferences (geographic proximity, traditional rivalry, competitive equity, etc.) 5. It is possible to envision a 10 team conference in the NW and Northern Cal made up of Stanford, Cal, Oregon, OSU, UW, WSU, BSU, BYU, Utah, Fresno State ... the compromise being that Cal and Stanford are no longer in a league with USC and UCLA, but that would not prevent ooc games with these schools (or other schools aligned in that southern-pacific 10-team conference). 6. I like CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS as the teams that play in the playoffs. No wildcards, no at-large, just win your conference. 7. As for competitive games in the playoffs ... yes, the #8 seed might play a #1 seed in the first round as a total mismatch ... but that is not any different than watching Alabama put 56 on Florida is it?
I honestly don't think you would need to blow up the college football world to get 8 conferences with 10 teams each. And given the budget differences we see today (and proposals for stipends and cash to student-athletes), I think the 64 team Elite Division is even more likely - with or without the NCAA. And that means you COULD implement competition rules and conference alignments that would reflect even more competitive game scenarios. Do you NEED 128 teams or 80 teams to create a good on-field competitive game and playoff system - a product that TV and other media will finance?
All that said ... I could be one happy college football fan if we went back to conference aligned bowl games, and maybe 12 other bowl games for other good teams (total of 20 bowl games) ... that would return us to the days of the Rose Bowl for Pac10/12 Champ versus the Big10/14 Champ.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Dec 7, 2016 18:04:19 GMT -8
My point is that if we made 8 conferences there are gonna be plenty of years that one or more conferences will have multiple teams are far better than the top team of a few of the other conferences. You could in theory have 3-4 conference champs that aren't in any top 10 poll getting into the playoffs over much better teams. The current system has actually pretty much gotten it right 3 years in a row now.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 8, 2016 22:37:25 GMT -8
Four teams from the Big Ten! Emmert's nonsense illustrates that a 4-team playoff is about a billion times better than an 8-team playoff this year.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 9, 2016 6:19:40 GMT -8
Four teams from the Big Ten! Emmert's nonsense illustrates that a 4-team playoff is about a billion times better than an 8-team playoff this year. I agree, but I don't think the CFP would ever let that happen. The writer is just being lazy. I imagine it would limit the WC to 1 per conference, maybe with a caveat all WCs have to be ranked in the top 12. Or maybe an automatic qualifier if a team is ranked in the top 5 but didn't win it's conference championship (i.e. Ohio State). But yeah, Wiscy should not get in before USC nor would they, they lost to the best 3 teams in their conference and their best win is ranked 20th. USC beat a top 4 team and the 19th ranked team (based on playoff rankings). Anyway, I think 4 works for the reasons you mentioned earlier. But I also think there is absolutely a legit argument OK and Penn State should be playing for the championship this year. Adding another layer of games starting this weekend IMO would be awesome and again, the losers still qualify for the bowls. I don't think we should isolate 1 year as the reason for or against either. Remember, the Pac 12 didn't get a team in last year, and quite frankly, I think the way it is set up and the bias that already exists, it's the Pac 12 more often than not that is going to get screwed in a 4-team tourney.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 9, 2016 12:18:24 GMT -8
Four teams from the Big Ten! Emmert's nonsense illustrates that a 4-team playoff is about a billion times better than an 8-team playoff this year. I agree, but I don't think the CFP would ever let that happen. The writer is just being lazy. I imagine it would limit the WC to 1 per conference, maybe with a caveat all WCs have to be ranked in the top 12. Or maybe an automatic qualifier if a team is ranked in the top 5 but didn't win it's conference championship (i.e. Ohio State). But yeah, Wiscy should not get in before USC nor would they, they lost to the best 3 teams in their conference and their best win is ranked 20th. USC beat a top 4 team and the 19th ranked team (based on playoff rankings). Anyway, I think 4 works for the reasons you mentioned earlier. But I also think there is absolutely a legit argument OK and Penn State should be playing for the championship this year. Adding another layer of games starting this weekend IMO would be awesome and again, the losers still qualify for the bowls. I don't think we should isolate 1 year as the reason for or against either. Remember, the Pac 12 didn't get a team in last year, and quite frankly, I think the way it is set up and the bias that already exists, it's the Pac 12 more often than not that is going to get screwed in a 4-team tourney. I am not trying to be flippant, but what is your "legit" argument that Oklahoma should be in? Oklahoma lost by 10 points at a neutral site to a team that finished fourth in the American Athletic Conference's Western Division, sixth best in the conference. Oklahoma lost by three touchdowns at home to a team that is ranked third in the final CFP poll (should be second, in my opinion). The Big 12 is clearly the worst of the Power 5 conferences. TCU finished fifth in the Big 12. Oklahoma beat them by six. Texas finished sixth. Oklahoma beat them by five at a neutral site. Texas Tech finished seventh. Oklahoma won by three. Penn State lost to the fourth best team in the ACC Coastal Division, seventh best in the ACC. Penn State lost to Michigan, who finished third in the Big Ten East, by 39 points. I think that Michigan is clearly a better team than Penn State, but they dropped two home games. The beauty of the current system is you are trying to parse out the differences between really good teams. You get below that top four, those teams have a lot more warts. Stanford was a top 4 team last year, but they did not play like it in Evanston, losing by 10 to the fifth best team in the Big Ten. Their conference schedule was soft, missing both Arizona State and Utah (the two best teams in the South that they could miss). 12-1, and they are in the tournament. 11-2, and they are in the Rose Bowl.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 9, 2016 12:39:57 GMT -8
I agree, but I don't think the CFP would ever let that happen. The writer is just being lazy. I imagine it would limit the WC to 1 per conference, maybe with a caveat all WCs have to be ranked in the top 12. Or maybe an automatic qualifier if a team is ranked in the top 5 but didn't win it's conference championship (i.e. Ohio State). But yeah, Wiscy should not get in before USC nor would they, they lost to the best 3 teams in their conference and their best win is ranked 20th. USC beat a top 4 team and the 19th ranked team (based on playoff rankings). Anyway, I think 4 works for the reasons you mentioned earlier. But I also think there is absolutely a legit argument OK and Penn State should be playing for the championship this year. Adding another layer of games starting this weekend IMO would be awesome and again, the losers still qualify for the bowls. I don't think we should isolate 1 year as the reason for or against either. Remember, the Pac 12 didn't get a team in last year, and quite frankly, I think the way it is set up and the bias that already exists, it's the Pac 12 more often than not that is going to get screwed in a 4-team tourney. I am not trying to be flippant, but what is your "legit" argument that Oklahoma should be in? Oklahoma lost by 10 points at a neutral site to a team that finished fourth in the American Athletic Conference's Western Division, sixth best in the conference. Oklahoma lost by three touchdowns at home to a team that is ranked third in the final CFP poll (should be second, in my opinion). The Big 12 is clearly the worst of the Power 5 conferences. TCU finished fifth in the Big 12. Oklahoma beat them by six. Texas finished sixth. Oklahoma beat them by five at a neutral site. Texas Tech finished seventh. Oklahoma won by three. Penn State lost to the fourth best team in the ACC Coastal Division, seventh best in the ACC. Penn State lost to Michigan, who finished third in the Big Ten East, by 39 points. I think that Michigan is clearly a better team than Penn State, but they dropped two home games. The beauty of the current system is you are trying to parse out the differences between really good teams. You get below that top four, those teams have a lot more warts. Stanford was a top 4 team last year, but they did not play like it in Evanston, losing by 10 to the fifth best team in the Big Ten. Their conference schedule was soft, missing both Arizona State and Utah (the two best teams in the South that they could miss). 12-1, and they are in the tournament. 11-2, and they are in the Rose Bowl. I should have completed that comment with "if we had an 8 team tourney". I agree with your argument why they aren't in the 4 team tourney. OK is a power 5 conference champion and one of the hottest teams in the land right now. As is USC. As is Penn State, another conference champion. I personally would like to see all three in a tourney format right now. Again, I'm not really complaining about how it is structured now, I sure like it better than the popularity contest. But there are holes in the design IMO. Conference championships should mean something for all the Power 5 conferences. Pac 12 got left out last year. Big 12 got left out this year. At some point, we are going to have a scenario like 2 undeafeated teams and 3 conference champions with 1 loss and someone will get hosed. It will go to 8 at some point. Probably once the Big 10 or SEC gets screwed.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Dec 9, 2016 13:15:28 GMT -8
I agree . . . however I don't see the SEC getting screwed in my lifetime. The current system is set up to protect them.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 10, 2016 4:56:09 GMT -8
I am not trying to be flippant, but what is your "legit" argument that Oklahoma should be in? Oklahoma lost by 10 points at a neutral site to a team that finished fourth in the American Athletic Conference's Western Division, sixth best in the conference. Oklahoma lost by three touchdowns at home to a team that is ranked third in the final CFP poll (should be second, in my opinion). The Big 12 is clearly the worst of the Power 5 conferences. TCU finished fifth in the Big 12. Oklahoma beat them by six. Texas finished sixth. Oklahoma beat them by five at a neutral site. Texas Tech finished seventh. Oklahoma won by three. Penn State lost to the fourth best team in the ACC Coastal Division, seventh best in the ACC. Penn State lost to Michigan, who finished third in the Big Ten East, by 39 points. I think that Michigan is clearly a better team than Penn State, but they dropped two home games. The beauty of the current system is you are trying to parse out the differences between really good teams. You get below that top four, those teams have a lot more warts. Stanford was a top 4 team last year, but they did not play like it in Evanston, losing by 10 to the fifth best team in the Big Ten. Their conference schedule was soft, missing both Arizona State and Utah (the two best teams in the South that they could miss). 12-1, and they are in the tournament. 11-2, and they are in the Rose Bowl. I should have completed that comment with "if we had an 8 team tourney". I agree with your argument why they aren't in the 4 team tourney. OK is a power 5 conference champion and one of the hottest teams in the land right now. As is USC. As is Penn State, another conference champion. I personally would like to see all three in a tourney format right now. Again, I'm not really complaining about how it is structured now, I sure like it better than the popularity contest. But there are holes in the design IMO. Conference championships should mean something for all the Power 5 conferences. Pac 12 got left out last year. Big 12 got left out this year. At some point, we are going to have a scenario like 2 undeafeated teams and 3 conference champions with 1 loss and someone will get hosed. It will go to 8 at some point. Probably once the Big 10 or SEC gets screwed. Oklahoma? Since the election, they have been great, but they only beat 3-9 Iowa State by 10 at the beginning of November. Beat eighth-place Baylor, third-place West Virginia, and runner-up Oklahoma State over the last four weeks by 3+ scores each. USC has been one of the best teams in the country since the beginning of October. Penn State beat seventh place Minnesota by three to start October but has looked good since. My real problem with eight this year is who is seventh, and who is eighth, and who is ninth? Off the cuff, I think that Oklahoma should get left off, but that puts USC eighth, setting up a rematch of a 52-6 game. Hard pass. Maybe drop Wisconsin and elevate USC and Oklahoma? That would probably be ideal: #8 Oklahoma @ #1 Alabama #7 USC @ #2 Ohio State #6 Penn State @ #3 Clemson #5 Michigan @ #4 Washington Or you could tweak it to limit the number of teams a conference can put in to two (conference champion plus one at large): #8 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson #6 USC @ #3 Ohio State #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington Those would be fun, but you would totally upend the current bowl system. The bowls were in full-on meltdown, when it looked like Navy had a chance to make a Big Six Bowl. I think that you would have to start the season at least a week earlier to make that all work. Plus, until there is a team that can really win the championship finish fifth, I just do not see the need to tweak the system.
|
|
|
Post by RenoBeaver on Dec 10, 2016 8:24:11 GMT -8
I should have completed that comment with "if we had an 8 team tourney". I agree with your argument why they aren't in the 4 team tourney. OK is a power 5 conference champion and one of the hottest teams in the land right now. As is USC. As is Penn State, another conference champion. I personally would like to see all three in a tourney format right now. Again, I'm not really complaining about how it is structured now, I sure like it better than the popularity contest. But there are holes in the design IMO. Conference championships should mean something for all the Power 5 conferences. Pac 12 got left out last year. Big 12 got left out this year. At some point, we are going to have a scenario like 2 undeafeated teams and 3 conference champions with 1 loss and someone will get hosed. It will go to 8 at some point. Probably once the Big 10 or SEC gets screwed. Oklahoma? Since the election, they have been great, but they only beat 3-9 Iowa State by 10 at the beginning of November. Beat eighth-place Baylor, third-place West Virginia, and runner-up Oklahoma State over the last four weeks by 3+ scores each. USC has been one of the best teams in the country since the beginning of October. Penn State beat seventh place Minnesota by three to start October but has looked good since. My real problem with eight this year is who is seventh, and who is eighth, and who is ninth? Off the cuff, I think that Oklahoma should get left off, but that puts USC eighth, setting up a rematch of a 52-6 game. Hard pass. Maybe drop Wisconsin and elevate USC and Oklahoma? That would probably be ideal: #8 Oklahoma @ #1 Alabama #7 USC @ #2 Ohio State #6 Penn State @ #3 Clemson #5 Michigan @ #4 Washington Or you could tweak it to limit the number of teams a conference can put in to two (conference champion plus one at large): #8 Florida State @ #1 Alabama #7 Oklahoma @ #2 Clemson #6 USC @ #3 Ohio State #5 Penn State @ #4 Washington Those would be fun, but you would totally upend the current bowl system. The bowls were in full-on meltdown, when it looked like Navy had a chance to make a Big Six Bowl. I think that you would have to start the season at least a week earlier to make that all work. Plus, until there is a team that can really win the championship finish fifth, I just do not see the need to tweak the system. Oklahoma went undefeated in a Power 5 conference. West Virginia was ranked 14th when they played in Morgantown, OSU was 10th. USC beat exactly one team with a winning record since October 8, which was indeed their signature win. Like USC, OKs losses came early in the season, against ranked teams, except there were only 2 of them. But then, that's why they are ranked ahead of USC. Now, would I bet on OK if they were playing USC? I wouldn't bet against USC against any team in this tourney except Bama, still thinks Bama whoops them bad. But I think OK would give Clemson, Penn State, and Washington a run for their money right now. And no it wouldn't totally upend the bowl system. That was media hype. They had it all worked out well before the Army Navy game but the media was still reporting how the bowl system was "paralyzed". Notice they announced the bowls literally minutes after Army/Navy. Besides, the losers would likely all be playing in the New Year's Six bowls, it's an easy reshuffling. Anyway, IMO it's going to happen at some point, not sure when but they will go to 8 minimum. If for no other reason, money. If the President of the NCAA is publicly voicing his opinion to expand to 8, that will at least start the discussion. But it may not happen 'til the current contract runs out. I have a feeling they will just move it to the end of the year, but I'd rather see them start it earlier so the losers can play in the big bowl games. But these are such huge corporate events now that they will probably just pick the 6 top bowl games and rotate them through.
|
|