interesting because the whole "conference" thing is marketing anyway, as is the whole "traditional rivalry" thing, and half the extra games are outside the conference & that's how schools like Virginia Tech and CSU - Fresno try to get into conferences, and thus into the playoffs
But I think mostly a change in society -- I see the danger, especially of "celebrity" -- but that's been there now for twenty years --
The time when the top students, top athletes chose from the top regional schools (like you did) is nearly gone; the closest I think is probably here in California or in New York where the public colleges really are very good and dirt cheapm, except that those considerations don't generally hold for the top students / top athletes.
-----Original Message-----From: Tom Daly
Academics against additional games called 'play-offs'. Afraid it reeks of commercialism. Caught in a squeeze. They're dying to find another term or method so they can get the money. Fans for playoffs. Coaches for them.A Ds for 'em. University presidents and chancellors divided. Me? I think everyone should drop a game from their regular schedule (most school have gone from 8,9 & 10 games to 11 or 12 in the past 10-15 years) (money?) and go for the play-offs. They can still have their conference play-offs to determine champs there as well.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 1:53 PM
Subject: unrelated to house...
We were wondering if YOU had an opinion about BCS rankings or the prior "coach and journalist voting" system to rank college teams.
Why not have a playoff, since that's pretty much what they have now, with the crazy rotating bowl games?