Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  RE: Playoff system reform Topic:  RE: Playoff system reform Author Message Monroe Slavin General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Oxnard, CA Post Count: 9,121 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/13/2014 9:40:39 PM  I doubt that I'll make it to that game. As for our likelihood of success that day... Where's the band?! WHERE"S THE BAND?! DesignspiritUSA.com The Pets On The Go Collection of pet gear travel bags The Holiday Tote Bigg Bagg Collection--over-sized, reversible, extra pockets; now love carrying packages as much as you love shopping! Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/13/2014 9:47:22 PM  Monroe Slavin wrote: I doubt that I'll make it to that game. As for our likelihood of success that day... We'll we beat Penn State without your attendance, so I guess OHIO will muddle though this time. I know it's not a MAC game, but it's important nonetheless. ;-) The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,152 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 11:56:32 AM  Ozcat wrote: I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all. Marshall wasn't given an ounce of respect because they didn't deserve any. Their best win was who? Rice? Their CUSA schedule didn't hold them back as much as their OOC slate did. There's no equal access under the four-team format. Even if a G5 team were to schedule four OOC heavyweights (an impossibility in the real world) and go unbeaten, they'll never be a top-four team at the end of the regular season. The conference schedule will always drag them down in the minds of the committee. Top 10 is the best a G5 school can hope for. Let's face it, the committee is loaded with "P"5 alumni who are completely biased in favor of their conferences. And this year showed that "body of work" is irrelevant in their eyes. Just like all the other polls, its "what've you done lately?" BYU may have the best chance because as an independent they don't have to worry about a weak conference schedule. But they don't have the benefit of a conference championship game, either, which seemed to have mattered this season. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 12:26:58 PM  Pataskala wrote: Ozcat wrote: I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all. Marshall wasn't given an ounce of respect because they didn't deserve any. Their best win was who? Rice? Their CUSA schedule didn't hold them back as much as their OOC slate did. There's no equal access under the four-team format. Even if a G5 team were to schedule four OOC heavyweights (an impossibility in the real world) and go unbeaten, they'll never be a top-four team at the end of the regular season. The conference schedule will always drag them down in the minds of the committee. Top 10 is the best a G5 school can hope for. Let's face it, the committee is loaded with "P"5 alumni who are completely biased in favor of their conferences. And this year showed that "body of work" is irrelevant in their eyes. Just like all the other polls, its "what've you done lately?" BYU may have the best chance because as an independent they don't have to worry about a weak conference schedule. But they don't have the benefit of a conference championship game, either, which seemed to have mattered this season. BYU has a better schedule but has to rely on making it as an at-large team to one of the major bowls. A nice aspect of the new system is that if you are a MAC, MWC, AAC, CUSA school that if you make the conference title game you have a shot at a major bowl. NIU's and Marshall's chances at a major bowl depended on the outcome of the MWC title game. Boise scheduled Mississippi State and lost but picked up a huge boost in SOS for it. The old system rewarded scheduling that allowed a school to go undefeated or win enough games to make a bowl. With the MAC having 5 bowls now its time to load up more on the non-conference scheduling because we play for that MAC title game and a chance at a major bowl. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top Ozcat General User Member Since: 1/4/2005 Location: Gahanna, OH Post Count: 818 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 1:46:02 PM  Pataskala wrote: There's no equal access under the four-team format. Even if a G5 team were to schedule four OOC heavyweights (an impossibility in the real world) and go unbeaten, they'll never be a top-four team at the end of the regular season. It isn't that hard to schedule major P5 opponents, unless you're going to demand home and homes. Look at Bowling Green's schedule next year - Memphis, Purdue, Tennessee and Maryland. They have Maryland scheduled to play in their stadium in 2018, and just hosted Indiana this season. If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. The '08 Utah team was probably the best non-AQ team in the BCS era, but even their schedule wasn't great. I contend that if a G5 played 4 ranked P5 teams and won them all, then ran the table in conference that they'd be right in the conversation. The harsh reality is it's extremely rare for a G5 team to be good enough to be a top 4 squad, because that scenario is a near impossibility. Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,064 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 2:11:17 PM  Ozcat wrote: ... If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. That's not really realistic, unfortunately, because 2-1 deals will bankrupt an athletic department. In a 2-1 deal, essentially the team gets less than no money for 3 games. For the 3 games the only money they receive is that they get to keep all the home gate from the one home game. That, in turn, means they get less than nothing for the 3 games because the home gate from the 1 home game will not offset the costs for the two away games, for which the team receives nothing. To offset a 2-1 deal, a team will also need to schedule at least 1 or 2 additional money games, meaning it really ends up becoming a 4-1 deal. If you did all your OOC games that way, that would mean that over 5 seasons (20 OOC games), you would have a total of 4 home games, meaning 4 years with 5 homes games (one of them OOC), then a year with no OOC home games at all, and only 4 home games. Ohio did schedule some 2-1 deals in years past, but they couldn't afford to actually play them as scheduled, and had to convert some of them into 0-3 deals in order to keep the athletic department solvent. While not everyone liked Hocutt, you have to give him credit at least for keeping the athletic department afloat in the wake of the 2-1 deals scheduled by his predecessor by scheduling 2 money games a year to offset some of them, and converting others into 0-3 deals. Last Edited: 12/14/2014 2:13:45 PM by L.C. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 5:56:06 PM  Ozcat wrote: Pataskala wrote: There's no equal access under the four-team format. Even if a G5 team were to schedule four OOC heavyweights (an impossibility in the real world) and go unbeaten, they'll never be a top-four team at the end of the regular season. It isn't that hard to schedule major P5 opponents, unless you're going to demand home and homes. Look at Bowling Green's schedule next year - Memphis, Purdue, Tennessee and Maryland. They have Maryland scheduled to play in their stadium in 2018, and just hosted Indiana this season. If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. The '08 Utah team was probably the best non-AQ team in the BCS era, but even their schedule wasn't great. I contend that if a G5 played 4 ranked P5 teams and won them all, then ran the table in conference that they'd be right in the conversation. The harsh reality is it's extremely rare for a G5 team to be good enough to be a top 4 squad, because that scenario is a near impossibility. If BG runs the table next year, do you think they play for the national championship? I don't. So I don't believe the NCAA should state all teams have "EQUAL ACCESS" to the playoffs. They don't. Back to Top perimeterpost General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 3,165 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 7:21:52 PM  Imagine if the NFL was set up like the FBS- - league revenue shares are divided 70/27, NFC/AFC. That comes out to an extra $1.3b/yr for the NFC to spend on improving their programs. - salary caps are removed so NFC teams can poach the top talent from AFC teams. - players are no longer drafted, they go to the team that makes them the best offer. - the AFC is no longer guaranteed any of the open playoff spots because those should go to the best teams, and besides, nobody wants to watch Cincinnati play Buffalo anyways. - In spite of having the best record in the NFL over the last 15yrs the Patriots never play in a Super Bowl because they are from the much weaker AFC and its easier to win there. - In spite of being awful for most of the last 85 years Detroit gets 2.6X the revenue of every AFC team because they had the dumb luck of being an original member of the NFL back in the 20s when they were the Portsmouth Ohio Spartans. - NFC teams can now afford to buyout most of their AFC match ups giving them up to 12 home games on a 16 game schedule. - a panel made up of Roger Goodell, Matt Millen and Peter King unilaterally decide which teams get to play in the playoffs, and they promise to be fair. MY STATE. MY TEAM. Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/14/2014 9:31:06 PM  perimeterpost wrote: Imagine if the NFL was set up like the FBS- - league revenue shares are divided 70/27, NFC/AFC. That comes out to an extra $1.3b/yr for the NFC to spend on improving their programs. - salary caps are removed so NFC teams can poach the top talent from AFC teams. - players are no longer drafted, they go to the team that makes them the best offer. - the AFC is no longer guaranteed any of the open playoff spots because those should go to the best teams, and besides, nobody wants to watch Cincinnati play Buffalo anyways. - In spite of having the best record in the NFL over the last 15yrs the Patriots never play in a Super Bowl because they are from the much weaker AFC and its easier to win there. - In spite of being awful for most of the last 85 years Detroit gets 2.6X the revenue of every AFC team because they had the dumb luck of being an original member of the NFL back in the 20s when they were the Portsmouth Ohio Spartans. - NFC teams can now afford to buyout most of their AFC match ups giving them up to 12 home games on a 16 game schedule. - a panel made up of Roger Goodell, Matt Millen and Peter King unilaterally decide which teams get to play in the playoffs, and they promise to be fair. Excellent analogy to make the point. I would add "NFC players and coaches paid substantially more than AFC players". Back to Top Maryland Bobcat General User Member Since: 12/28/2004 Location: Annapolis, MD Post Count: 167 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 9:09:22 AM  Ozcat wrote: I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all. Marshall wasn't given an ounce of respect because they didn't deserve any. Their best win was who? Rice? Their CUSA schedule didn't hold them back as much as their OOC slate did. That's the problem, though, you can't load up your schedule when you're playing eight teams from your conference. That leaves 4 non-conference games, in which you can't play all on the road. You do need to provide your fan base at least one home game. You could schedule Alabama, LSU and Florida State, win those three and your eight Sun Belt games and still not be in the playoffs. The strength of schedule would still not be there. No other sport in the NCAA operates this way. They emphasize playing within the bounds of your conference, and winning you conference. Did anyone happen to catch the College Cup (soccer) on Friday? UMBC (Maryland-Baltimore County) made the Cup, which is the equivalent of a 16 seed making the Final Four. Back to Top . General User Member Since: 2/3/2005 Post Count: 2,949 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 10:57:22 AM  I would give the Power 5 conferences more credit if they simply admitted they don't respect the other programs, they don't want to share their money and they just want to create an 8 or 16 team playoff that makes billions of dollars. I can handle greed, if it's open and honest greed. I can accept or avoid it. I don't like wholesale greed operating under the auspices of amateurism. I want to see the Power 5 teams have to play each other all 12 games. Big-time programs going 7-5. No 60-point wins that serve as bye weeks and excuses to print money in places like Columbus, Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa and Eugene. Pre-ordained routs disguised as games. College football will be wildly popular in the short-term, even more than it is. But it will become professional football played at a lower caliber. I think the product deteriorates over time if the smaller conferences just walk out of the room. Three-loss national champions will be the norm. I'm not sure people will like that. College football will always make money, but I think people at big programs like being the bully. I think it pleases their fans to go 11-1, even if five wins came against inferior competition. That seems boring to me, but I think it's integral to the sport's popularity. I'd like to see the small guys blow it up in some way. Last Edited: 12/15/2014 10:59:10 AM by . Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,152 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 2:04:51 PM  OhioStunter wrote: Ozcat wrote: Pataskala wrote: There's no equal access under the four-team format. Even if a G5 team were to schedule four OOC heavyweights (an impossibility in the real world) and go unbeaten, they'll never be a top-four team at the end of the regular season. It isn't that hard to schedule major P5 opponents, unless you're going to demand home and homes. Look at Bowling Green's schedule next year - Memphis, Purdue, Tennessee and Maryland. They have Maryland scheduled to play in their stadium in 2018, and just hosted Indiana this season. If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. The '08 Utah team was probably the best non-AQ team in the BCS era, but even their schedule wasn't great. I contend that if a G5 played 4 ranked P5 teams and won them all, then ran the table in conference that they'd be right in the conversation. The harsh reality is it's extremely rare for a G5 team to be good enough to be a top 4 squad, because that scenario is a near impossibility. If BG runs the table next year, do you think they play for the national championship? I don't. So I don't believe the NCAA should state all teams have "EQUAL ACCESS" to the playoffs. They don't. Exactly. The argument would be that they play only three games vs "P"5 competition while the "bigs" play eight, nine or ten games. BTW, Memphis isn't a "P"5 school -- yet. AAC is a G5 conference at least for now. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Ozcat General User Member Since: 1/4/2005 Location: Gahanna, OH Post Count: 818 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 5:18:05 PM  OhioStunter wrote: Ozcat wrote: It isn't that hard to schedule major P5 opponents, unless you're going to demand home and homes. Look at Bowling Green's schedule next year - Memphis, Purdue, Tennessee and Maryland. They have Maryland scheduled to play in their stadium in 2018, and just hosted Indiana this season. If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. If BG runs the table next year, do you think they play for the national championship? I don't. So I don't believe the NCAA should state all teams have "EQUAL ACCESS" to the playoffs. They don't. With those four teams? Not a chance. If it's Bama, LSU, and FSU like Maryland Bobcat suggested, then they'd be right in the running. 3 (or 4) road Ws against top tier programs on the resume would be more impressive than anything anybody did this season, even if Ws over EMU and Akron rounded out the schedule. Be honest. How many G5 teams in the last 20 years were worthy of being considered top 4? Two? Three, at most? Back to Top L.C. General User Member Since: 8/31/2005 Location: United States Post Count: 10,064 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 5:30:18 PM  Ozcat wrote: ...Be honest. How many G5 teams in the last 20 years were worthy of being considered top 4? Two? Three, at most? If any have been, its a surprise, given how skewed the economics are. If you had more equity in the way the system is set up, you'd have more balanced results. “We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus Back to Top bobcat2nc General User Member Since: 12/28/2004 Post Count: 584 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/15/2014 11:24:19 PM  Delete Pending wrote: I would give the Power 5 conferences more credit if they simply admitted they don't respect the other programs, they don't want to share their money and they just want to create an 8 or 16 team playoff that makes billions of dollars. I can handle greed, if it's open and honest greed. I can accept or avoid it. I don't like wholesale greed operating under the auspices of amateurism. I want to see the Power 5 teams have to play each other all 12 games. Big-time programs going 7-5. No 60-point wins that serve as bye weeks and excuses to print money in places like Columbus, Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa and Eugene. Pre-ordained routs disguised as games. College football will be wildly popular in the short-term, even more than it is. But it will become professional football played at a lower caliber. I think the product deteriorates over time if the smaller conferences just walk out of the room. Three-loss national champions will be the norm. I'm not sure people will like that. College football will always make money, but I think people at big programs like being the bully. I think it pleases their fans to go 11-1, even if five wins came against inferior competition. That seems boring to me, but I think it's integral to the sport's popularity. I'd like to see the small guys blow it up in some way. My original post to start this topic was based on this same thought process. I would like to see the small guys blow it up but I think that ship has sailed. If that is the case then I would like to see the P5 teams battle it out among themselves. That is how I came up with the idea of a 12 game season that would require 15 or 16 games to win the championship games. The top 4 teams would only need to play 15--same as now. I guess this is one area where I do not have rose colored glasses. I think college football at the P5 level is well on its way to a lower tiered professional sport. Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/16/2014 11:13:52 AM  Ozcat wrote: OhioStunter wrote: Ozcat wrote: It isn't that hard to schedule major P5 opponents, unless you're going to demand home and homes. Look at Bowling Green's schedule next year - Memphis, Purdue, Tennessee and Maryland. They have Maryland scheduled to play in their stadium in 2018, and just hosted Indiana this season. If it takes a 2 for 1 to get a P5 in your house, do it. If BG runs the table next year, do you think they play for the national championship? I don't. So I don't believe the NCAA should state all teams have "EQUAL ACCESS" to the playoffs. They don't. With those four teams? Not a chance. If it's Bama, LSU, and FSU like Maryland Bobcat suggested, then they'd be right in the running. 3 (or 4) road Ws against top tier programs on the resume would be more impressive than anything anybody did this season, even if Ws over EMU and Akron rounded out the schedule. Be honest. How many G5 teams in the last 20 years were worthy of being considered top 4? Two? Three, at most? I honestly don't know the answer to that question without looking it up because I can't even remember what I did 20 days ago. But my point is that I have a problem with the NCAA touting the system as EVERY TEAM HAS ACCESS to the playoffs, when that simply is not true. In fact, to your point, this format is less friendly to the G5 than the BCS standings. At least NIU could get an Orange Bowl bid out of that. No, they weren't a top 4 team, but they were recognized with a major bowl appearance. Back to Top Andrew Ruck General User Member Since: 12/22/2004 Location: Columbus, OH Post Count: 4,694 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/16/2014 3:06:21 PM  Ozcat wrote: I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all. You mean those years Boise did that, did everything in their power, and still weren't seriously considered for the national championship even after winning a few marquee bowls in prior years to further prove their worth? There is absolutely positively NOT "equal access." This should not be this hard. Require each team to belong to a conference, require each conference to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship. At the end, we have a tournament of conference champions. Every team controls their own destiny, no team can whine if they fail to win their own conference, and we burn the rankings system that is no better than figure skating judges to the ground. (but we would need rankings for seedings, which would award byes for the top 6 (effectively the power 5 and best non-power)) No it won't happen, because they would refuse to give smaller conferences an auto bid. In that case, I think I'd prefer they just break the power 5 off, break up the Big 12 into the other 4 and make it 4 mega conferences who have a tournament of conference champions....then the rest of us can do something similar for a different championship. I don't care how unlikely it is...The current set up of being considered in the same division with absolutely no chance at the championship is fundamentally flawed and goes against the very basic necessities of sports. Andrew Ruck B.B.A. 2003 Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/16/2014 3:16:05 PM  Andrew Ruck wrote: Ozcat wrote: I don't buy the no equal access argument. If a team like Ohio, Marshall, or NIU wants a shot to get into the playoff, then they'll have to do what Boise did a few times. Load up your schedule with legitimate opponents, and go win them all. You mean those years Boise did that, did everything in their power, and still weren't seriously considered for the national championship even after winning a few marquee bowls in prior years to further prove their worth? There is absolutely positively NOT "equal access." This should not be this hard. Require each team to belong to a conference, require each conference to have at least 12 teams and a conference championship. At the end, we have a tournament of conference champions. Every team controls their own destiny, no team can whine if they fail to win their own conference, and we burn the rankings system that is no better than figure skating judges to the ground. (but we would need rankings for seedings, which would award byes for the top 6 (effectively the power 5 and best non-power)) No it won't happen, because they would refuse to give smaller conferences an auto bid. In that case, I think I'd prefer they just break the power 5 off, break up the Big 12 into the other 4 and make it 4 mega conferences who have a tournament of conference champions....then the rest of us can do something similar for a different championship. I don't care how unlikely it is...The current set up of being considered in the same division with absolutely no chance at the championship is fundamentally flawed and goes against the very basic necessities of sports. You said it better than I could. You're hired. Back to Top perimeterpost General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 3,165 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/16/2014 5:00:37 PM  L.C. wrote: Ozcat wrote: ...Be honest. How many G5 teams in the last 20 years were worthy of being considered top 4? Two? Three, at most? If any have been, its a surprise, given how skewed the economics are. If you had more equity in the way the system is set up, you'd have more balanced results. how is worthiness decided and who gets to decide it? MY STATE. MY TEAM. Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/17/2014 12:15:04 AM  OhioStunter wrote: . . . In fact, to your point, this format is less friendly to the G5 than the BCS standings. At least NIU could get an Orange Bowl bid out of that. No, they weren't a top 4 team, but they were recognized with a major bowl appearance. NIU, Marshall, Colorado State and Boise (the eventual winner) were all within striking distance this year of the Fiesta Bowl. And, now, the top G5 team is guaranteed a major bowl EVERY year. That was not the case before, where you had to finish in the top 12, or in other circumstances in the top 16. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top OhioStunter General User Member Since: 2/18/2005 Location: Chicago Post Count: 2,516 Status: Offline     RE: Playoff system reform    Posted: 12/17/2014 10:12:21 AM  OhioCatFan wrote: OhioStunter wrote: . . . In fact, to your point, this format is less friendly to the G5 than the BCS standings. At least NIU could get an Orange Bowl bid out of that. No, they weren't a top 4 team, but they were recognized with a major bowl appearance. NIU, Marshall, Colorado State and Boise (the eventual winner) were all within striking distance this year of the Fiesta Bowl. And, now, the top G5 team is guaranteed a major bowl EVERY year. That was not the case before, where you had to finish in the top 12, or in other circumstances in the top 16. That's a good counterpoint, OCF. Do we know if there were any rankings of those teams in how close they were to the Fiesta Bowl? I don't think that exists. That's what I don't like about this -- there doesn't seem to be any numbers involved like with the BCS standings. It all seems to be done by the people behind the curtain and teams have no way of knowing how close or what they need to do to qualify for certain slots. Back to Top Showing Replies:   76 - 96  of 96 Posts Jump to Page:   < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 140 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 138 Guests 2 Registered Users:   chauncey1, FJC31 There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties