Who would have expected it? Boise State beats U of O in Eugene 37-32 and dominated for 2 and 1/2 quarters! Amazingly, and contrary to what the photo indicates, we couldn't run a lick. But our red-shirt freshman quarterback was spectacular!Ya, babeee!
9 comments:
The increasing parity in college football is great. I love to see small or underdog teams beat big conference teams.
Parity in college football is caused by the reduction of scholarships given to athletic departments, especially football. I believe that the amount of scholarships allowed now is 80 per team...down from over 100 a few years ago. This means that players who may have gotten a scholarship at say Ohio State may not now be offered one...meaning that they may take a scholarship at Ohio University (thereby bettering that football team). This new rule has made it easier for the lower tier schools to better their squads and becoming more competitive. This will eventually make the case for a college football playoff system because as more schools get better, they will DEMAND a different format from the much disliked BCS system in place now.
The popularity of college football would absolutely explode if a playoff system were to be implemented. It would be easy to do. Very few schools play games during December. The bowl system could be retained and restructured around the playoffs. The top 16 teams play in an elimination system through four week ends. The fourth game being the championship game. That's 15 games altogether. Some of the later round games can be given to a bowl. Teams that lose in the first or second round can go ahead and play in a bowl game. Those that didn't make the playoffs can play in the minor bowl games as usual. There would be more money for more teams. The attention and money (advertising, tickets, etc.) would be bigger than March madness. It is simply the greed of the major conferences that stands in the way of the playoff system.
Yep, you are both spot on. For once, I have nothing to add.
I about had a heart attack when BSU was ahead of Oreegon by three touchdowns and a field goal at the beginning of the 4th quarter and we just either ran out of gas or shut the engines down. Oregon score three unanswered touch downs. If there would have been 2 more minutes in the game we may have lost!
Kim--I listened to the postgame show on KBOI and according to them, they hadn't planned on that scenario either, their game plan was not targeted to being that far ahead and having to deal with a passing blitz, after all, Oregon had had such success running and BSU did a darn good job with that.
The scenario was just not what they had expected...
they were not able to adjust quickly to the change.
As for the bowl games, the playoff picture could include actual bowl games and bowl committees. Example, the BSC bowl games could still be used for the quarter, semi, and final games whereas the other bowls could "bid" to be one of the eight first round games...thereby creating a larger financial benefit for football teams. And, actually the LOSER of each bowl game could get say 60% of the payoff and the winners get only 40%. The catch is that the winners will also get a payout for the next bowl game(s) that they play in for advancing. Motive: advance and continue to get paid...lose andyou stillget a bigger percentage for your budget. And, since teams have to share the wealth (earnings) with their conferences, conferences should be happy also. Just a thought.
A very interesting one....ummm....redistribution of wealth? Just joking.
Not really but the deeper you play in the playoffs the more you will continue to get paid!
Post a Comment