Badger Football 2020 (Latest- Headed to the Duke’s Mayo Bowl (seriously)

[homer]

I agree it is stale but these are the best teams. Ohio State is easily the class of the B1G every year and they haven't made it out of the semis since 2015. MSU lost in the semis in 2016 (OSU and MSU lost by a combined score of 69 - 0 between the two games played in 16, 17). Other than OSU's win in 2015 the non-SEC/non Clemson schools get routinely trounced for the most part.

 

Semi-final victory margins when SEC/Clemson plays non-SEC/non-Clemson since 2016 (there was one Alabama Clemson semi game):

Clemson over Oklahoma +20

Alabama over MSU +38

Alabama over Washington +17

Clemson over OSU +31

Georgia over Oklahoma +6 (OT)

Alabama over Oklahoma +11

Clemson over Notre Dame +27

LSU over Oklahoma +35

Clemson over OSU +6

 

The average margin of victory is over 21 points and only 2 games out of 9 were within a TD.

 

It's gotten to the point where there should probably be an NIT for every team that isn't in the SEC or Clemson. Let them duke it out for supremacy and everyone play for a very well earned consolation prize.

[stalton]

I'd hate to egg anybody on, but when the two teams Duke it out, Mayo the Badgers be victorious

[madbad2000]

I am a bit surprised that the 4 Super Conferences hasn't come back around. If you care about having an undisputed champion and making money, this is the best route. With 4 SCs, you have a natural playoff setup every year with conference champions. The matchups for conferences rotate every year and are known years in advance. No seeding needed. IE Year 1 the Semi Finals are Big Ten vs SEC and ACC vs Pac/Big 12 (or whatever the 4th SC becomes)...Year 2 the Semis are ACC vs Big Ten and Pac/Big 12 vs SEC, etc.

 

One of the best aspects of this scenario is that losses in non-conference don't hurt your chances. You only have to win your conference to make the playoffs. This means that every team can schedule marquee games early in the season. With the bigger matchups, you could essentially schedule bowl games during the non-conference slate. Grab big sponsors at neutral locations. Look at what North Carolina and Auburn tried to do this year with a Chick Fil A sponsored game in Atlanta. I believe Auburn was looking at a $5M payday for that game before the Covid cancellation. Instead of paying 7 figures to teams to come lose at your stadium, you could actually flip that to big money makers. With better matchups, you should have better ratings and fan involvement. For a local example, Alabama has an issue with fans leaving the stadium early (or not showing up) for the non-conference patsy games. This is bad for business all around when you're trying to make money on concessions, merchandise and TV deals.

 

As for setup, the initial talk of SCs involved 4 conferences of 16 teams each. 8 teams per division which would give you 7 divisional games and 5 others. You could probably expand that to 20 teams, 10 each per division and 9 divisional games for 3 non-conference to preserve tradition games and marquee matchups.

 

This wouldn't solve the issue of Clemson, Alabama and OSU perennially being good. The only way to attack that, if you really care about parity, is to limit scholarships or the amount of "stars" you can recruit each cycle. That is a sticky subject for another time. This would eliminate extra chances for those teams that have that initial ranking boost. If Alabama can't win the SEC West, they don't have a back door for a second chance at a title.

[Oxy]

There is no need for the super-conference thing. Just expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 teams. The 5 P5 champions and then either 1 or 3 at-larges. Either the top 2 teams get a bye or nobody gets a bye. There is no reason the season can't start a week earlier in August or a week later in January, nobody is in school at either time anyway. With an 8 team field you could even guarantee a spot for a G5 team (Cinci, UCF, BYU, etc.)

[young guns]

There is no need for the super-conference thing. Just expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 teams. The 5 P5 champions and then either 1 or 3 at-larges. Either the top 2 teams get a bye or nobody gets a bye. There is no reason the season can't start a week earlier in August or a week later in January, nobody is in school at either time anyway. With an 8 team field you could even guarantee a spot for a G5 team (Cinci, UCF, BYU, etc.)

Just so much this. It is so obvious its stupid this hasn't been done.

[LouisEly]

I’m glad they chose to go to one, will be good for Mertz. Personally, I get why teams like Nebraska and Minnesota are declining selections, but in a shortened season, it is great experience for your underclassman.

That, and neither Minnesota nor Nebraska have the 3rd longest consecutive years of going to a bowl game streak in tact to protect. It's just another year of not going to a bowl game for them.

[LouisEly]

Super conferences just exacerbate the argument of not playing the same schedule. With 16-team conferences you have eight per division, which means seven division games... who do you play the other five games? Even if they don't play any non-conference games, there are still at least three teams in the other division that you don't play. Assuming that Iowa State and Notre Dame get added to the Big Ten, you may still have a situation where Wisconsin plays Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Penn State but, say, Iowa or Minnesota plays Rutgers, Maryland, and Michigan State instead.

[madbad2000]

Super conferences just exacerbate the argument of not playing the same schedule. With 16-team conferences you have eight per division, which means seven division games... who do you play the other five games? Even if they don't play any non-conference games, there are still at least three teams in the other division that you don't play. Assuming that Iowa State and Notre Dame get added to the Big Ten, you may still have a situation where Wisconsin plays Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Penn State but, say, Iowa or Minnesota plays Rutgers, Maryland, and Michigan State instead.

 

I'm fine with that argument because schedules are known well in advance. You play who you play. I am also fine with playing cross-over games with the other division. I think it could be fun to setup a football version of the ACC-Big Ten (or other conference) challenge every year. With subjectivity out the door, it makes it more feasible to play without the worry of your big dogs losing early. There are a lot of potential ways to take this and make a better product. Living in the heart of SEC country, I would LOVE to remove the bias in rankings and improve the product across the board.

 

"There is no need for the super-conference thing. Just expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 teams. The 5 P5 champions and then either 1 or 3 at-larges. Either the top 2 teams get a bye or nobody gets a bye. There is no reason the season can't start a week earlier in August or a week later in January, nobody is in school at either time anyway. With an 8 team field you could even guarantee a spot for a G5 team (Cinci, UCF, BYU, etc.)"

 

If the goal is to move to an 8 team playoff, I would prefer to see it limited to conference champions only. This opens it up for non-Power 5 teams to get a shot. Pick 3 conferences who you want to "elevate" and setup rotations every year without seeding. Independents move into a conference if you want to play for a title.

[owbc]

It's fine if they want to go to 6 or 8 teams, but then they need to start paying the players on the playoff teams. Too many games and too much injury risk.

[SomewhereInTime]

It's fine if they want to go to 6 or 8 teams, but then they need to start paying the players on the playoff teams. Too many games and too much injury risk.

 

Guess they should start paying D3 players then if they make it to the championship game.

[LouisEly]

Regarding expanding the "playoffs" to 8 teams, it's harder to draw the line between #8/9 than it is to draw the line between #4/5. Unless they have set, objective criteria (such as all "Power 5" conference champions, automatic inclusion if undefeated, automatic exclusion with two or more losses, etc.) there's going to be just as much if not even more arguing about who is #8 as there has been about who is #4.

[RobDeer 45]

Regarding expanding the "playoffs" to 8 teams, it's harder to draw the line between #8/9 than it is to draw the line between #4/5. Unless they have set, objective criteria (such as all "Power 5" conference champions, automatic inclusion if undefeated, automatic exclusion with two or more losses, etc.) there's going to be just as much if not even more arguing about who is #8 as there has been about who is #4.

 

I've always laughed when they argued to go from 2 to 4 teams, and how that would solve everything. I knew the same arguments would happen when they got to 4 and that people would immediately be calling for an 8 team tournament. No matter how many teams you have, there will always be people calling it unfair, and demanding expansion. I guess the question really is, what is the ideal amount of teams for a fun tournament. My gut reaction is 4, to make the regular season count as much as possible, but I do agree 8 might make the most sense with automatic bids from the power 5. Either way, people will complain and that's part of the fun.

[stoutdude04]

I think part of what makes Basketball great is that you feel like your school has a chance...until you lose your last game. In football, once you've got a loss(and aren't Bama or Clemson) your team has no shot. I would like to see a system that gives you a shot. I think this year with teams playing less games would have been a great year to make an 8 team playoff. I said this in another thread, but let Cinci or whoever get a shot at Bama. If Bama whoops em we can all say, 'see, these teams don't deserve it.'

[PeaveyFury]

Auto bids for the power five, then next three in as at-larges. If you're not ranked in the Top 8 in the country, you have no claim at playing for the title, IMO.

[SomewhereInTime]

Regarding expanding the "playoffs" to 8 teams, it's harder to draw the line between #8/9 than it is to draw the line between #4/5. Unless they have set, objective criteria (such as all "Power 5" conference champions, automatic inclusion if undefeated, automatic exclusion with two or more losses, etc.) there's going to be just as much if not even more arguing about who is #8 as there has been about who is #4.

 

LOL, yeah except at #8/#9 you won't have undefeated teams left out of the invitational. It becomes really tough to sell the "playoff" as a championship when many teams in the sub-division can't qualify no matter what they do.

[LouisEly]

LOL, yeah except at #8/#9 you won't have undefeated teams left out of the invitational.

See what Peavey wrote right above you. Unless there are set, objective criteria, there is no guarantee that undefeated teams will be included.

[tmwiese55]

I can get behind getting to 6 in order let every conference in then one WC, such as an undefeated non G5. I like keeping it at 6 too keep an emphasis on the top teams wanting to go undefeated and get the bye. It also greatly reduces the risk of a 2 loss team getting in. My preference is to just leave as is though.

 

One thing to keep in mind for the Super Conference idea is that it's not purely about playoffs. If you get to a set up like that then those conferences can separate from the rest, make their own rules, keep all the money, and only play amongst themselves. Essentially this is a way they could find a way to pay more to the players and treat the players in this division differently than the other athletes. The other teams can make their own tournament if they want and it eliminates them complaining about not getting their shot. Unfortunately, I think this route would lead to a lot of those schools getting rid of football down the line, but that is going to be the cost once the pay the players movement gets going.

[owbc]

I don't understand this at all. It's pretty obvious that the 4-team playoff is very effective at getting the best 2 teams into the championship game. I mean, look at the gap in talent between Notre Dame and Clemson. The sub-division teams do not belong in the top 4, ever. This isn't basketball.

 

If we want entertainment value, then yes, we should ditch the NY6 and make it all a playoff. The pathway gets a little harder for the top teams since there will occasionally be upsets. But generally an 8-team playoff would just further expose growing inequities in the sport and I can't imagine anyone in power would want that.

[wildcat83]

8 team playoff

5 power 5 conferences get an automatic bid

3 at large, but 1 has to be a non-power 5

 

First round might have blowouts, yep, so what? So does every other sport and even football at lower levels. If Cincy was playing Alabama in the first round, I would tune in to see how long they could hang with them. The feeling that your team can go undefeated and still not even sniff the playoff is going to turn off some fans, it's getting frustrating enough that the Alabama/Clemson part 7 is not even worth watching.

 

The biggest change that needs to occur is reducing the number of scholarships. I think NCAA football needs to find a way to spread out talent.

[wildcat83]

Looked up ratings out of curiosity. The highest rated games came all the way back in 2014-2015.

 

OSU/ORE - 34.14 million

OSU/ALA - 28.27

ORE/FSU - 28.16

 

This past year:

 

LSU/CLEM - 25.59

OSU/CLEM - 21.15

LSU/OU - 17.21

[tmwiese55]

Yea the focus should kind of be on tweaking something so it's not so easy for top 5 schools to get almost all of the top 100 kids every year in recruiting. The fact the same teams make it over and over isn't fixed by expanding and letting more in just to get crushed 9/10 times anyway. Those same top teams are still going to make it every year in that system. I don't know the solution to finding a way to spread the talent out, but that's what they should be focused on. In a weird way spreading out the talent actually then it would make more sense to widen the playoff since there is more parity. The current system is very accurate for having the best teams play. Maybe things like the 4 year scholarships and not letting them push players out is a way, but that's very tough to enforce. By no means is it an easy problem to fix.

[PeaveyFury]

8 team playoff

5 power 5 conferences get an automatic bid

3 at large, but 1 has to be a non-power 5

 

I can get behind this modification. Just put 'highest ranked non-power five' gets an auto birth, and I'm fine with that. It should be perfectly effective in addressing the 'UCFs' of the world and eliminating that issue.

[madbad2000]

Yea the focus should kind of be on tweaking something so it's not so easy for top 5 schools to get almost all of the top 100 kids every year in recruiting. The fact the same teams make it over and over isn't fixed by expanding and letting more in just to get crushed 9/10 times anyway. Those same top teams are still going to make it every year in that system. I don't know the solution to finding a way to spread the talent out, but that's what they should be focused on. In a weird way spreading out the talent actually then it would make more sense to widen the playoff since there is more parity. The current system is very accurate for having the best teams play. Maybe things like the 4 year scholarships and not letting them push players out is a way, but that's very tough to enforce. By no means is it an easy problem to fix.

 

I agree with this. The heavyweights are able to hoarde all the top talent and gives them a massive advantage year in and year out. There is also a lot of shady stuff going on in terms of pulling scholarships or forcing people off the team. You could reduce scholarship numbers and that should help spread out some talent. I wonder how many 3 and 4 stars would take walk on deals at Alabama or Clemson for the chance to bet on themselves. But I think the idea of pulling scholarships will only exacerbate the talk of paying players and/or schools making money off these players. Less scholarships means they are paying less/making more money. You could put a quota on 4 and 5 star players each year, but that also hurts players who may see talent stacking as better way to improve/reach the NFL.

 

There is not really a nice, clean way to do this. I would probably lean towards reduced scholarships and locking in players once signed. If a team signs a 4 star that doesn't pan out in first two years, they can't force them out or pull scholarships. Force teams to identify and develop talent without having the ability to just go "buy" replacements.

[PeaveyFury]

I won't disagree with any of the points regarding recruiting/hoarding of talent, etc., but I will note that there IS more turnover amongst these teams than we acknowledge. Remember unstoppable powerhouses like Florida State/Florida/Nebraska/USC from just a decade or two ago? Clemson was an also-ran in the ACC until Dabo, etc. Georgia is a newcomer to the big stage.

 

These programs DO come and go, but it usually corresponds to a serious coaching change, both positively and negatively. Whether this will hold true in the playoff era or not remains to be seen, I guess.

 

I think that one of the better ways to chip into the 'powerhouses' notion is to give more people a chance to knock them off. It simply can't hurt recruiting at a place like Cincinnati if they A)get into the playoff, and B)actually find a way to knock off one of the big boys. Add in the fact that it will undoubtedly on some occasion eventually yield a 7-seed type actually winning the thing, and it can't possibly be bad for the sport, IMO.

[SomewhereInTime]

LOL, yeah except at #8/#9 you won't have undefeated teams left out of the invitational.

See what Peavey wrote right above you. Unless there are set, objective criteria, there is no guarantee that undefeated teams will be included.

 

Well there should be. Give me 10 conference champions and then 6 at large bids.