2009 Bowl Season (official thread)

[JXC]

See, I disagree with that. The split title already provides an option to resolve the problem that your system is supposed to be fixing. It doesn't resolve the problem of when there are 4 or 5 undefeated teams, but that just doesn't happen that often, and when it does, it is usually a team like Boise or TCU.

And I am sorry, but you can't say that IF OSU hadn't lost any games, they would still be ranked behind Texas. It didn't happen, and it's useless to talk about it as if it did. IF Ohio State had beaten USC, they very well could have jumped Texas, and stayed in front of them throughout the season. Maybe not, but we will never know...because it never happened.

No. We know. Ohio State played this season with zero chance of playing for a national title, unless Texas loses to Nebraska. To think that Ohio State would be ranked of Texas makes you a delusional fan. You seriously think that voters would put Ohio State in over Texas? Basically the same Texas team who beat basically the same Ohio State team last year? The same Texas team who got snubbed last year? No way Texas would get snubbed again.

If's are what we all talk about here on the message board. It's quite a valid point. I know there are a lot of Buckeye fans out there that don't think it could happen. But next year Ohio State could very well be 12-0 and #3 or worse in the BCS.

My point is, we didn't know at the time, but it sure sucks that Ohio State didn't have a shot at the National Championship, no matter if USC makes that final drive or not.

Split titles don't fix a controversy. They cause more. There is still a debate about if Nebraska or Michigan were better in 1997. We all know it was Nebraska, but it's still a debate. Split title doesn't get us a true national championship. A playoff would.

 

[Bucklion]

Suppose there was a playoff this year, that included all the conference champions plus whoever. Now suppose Nebraska beats Texas in the Big 12 championship, gets hot or lucky and wins the playoff. Does anyone think Nebraska is the best team in College Football this year?

No moreso than Nebraska was anywhere near the best team in college football had they managed to beat Miami in 2001 after Colorado hung 62 on them and they didn't even with their own division of their own conference and ddin't even make their own conference championship game. Yet the BCS would have deemed them the champion...what's your point?

 

[JXC]

If this is the argument that people really have, is that a playoff wouldn't be a true champion because teams would be in there that aren't deserving of being national champion, then you could say this for all sports.

So I guess then that all sports championships are bogus? All of the Yankees World Championships? Bogus...they were just hot at the end. The Steelers Super Bowls? Bogus. The Stanley Cup? Worthless.

Ohio State's Final Four appearance in 1999? Nothing special. Shouldn't have happened, they weren't a top 4 team. (I'm assuming you still consider that it happened, even after all the crap that happened since)

All I'm saying is why does anybody have playoffs?

Frozen Four championship was pretty fun last year.

 

[BuckeyeSoldier]

If this is the argument that people really have, is that a playoff wouldn't be a true champion because teams would be in there that aren't deserving of being national champion, then you could say this for all sports.

So I guess then that all sports championships are bogus? All of the Yankees World Championships? Bogus...they were just hot at the end. The Steelers Super Bowls? Bogus. The Stanley Cup? Worthless.

Ohio State's Final Four appearance in 1999? Nothing special. Shouldn't have happened, they weren't a top 4 team. (I'm assuming you still consider that it happened, even after all the crap that happened since)

All I'm saying is why does anybody have playoffs?

Frozen Four championship was pretty fun last year.

All those championships are fine.... ill watch them... but i dont LOVE THEM... college football is special and different and the last thing i want to do is change my favorite sport to be more like my less favorite sports.

ps, the only reason i will ever agree with the idea of a college football playoff is if it solves the BIGGEST thorn in my side from CFB... Give the northern teams some home games in the post season. That is the only selling point that is gonna work on me.

 

[JXC]

All those championships are fine.... ill watch them... but i dont LOVE THEM... college football is special and different and the last thing i want to do is change my favorite sport to be more like my less favorite sports.

ps, the only reason i will ever agree with the idea of a college football playoff is if it solves the BIGGEST thorn in my side from CFB... Give the northern teams some home games in the post season. That is the only selling point that is gonna work on me.

Maybe the way the championship works is the reason that college football is your favorite sport. Maybe it's just because college football is awesome, playoffs or not. For me I think it is the latter. Although what I realized more this year, is that I'm not a big college football fan. I'm a big Ohio State football fan. If Ohio State didn't have a team next year, college football would not be that fun for me. I'd enjoy the NFL more. But I love Ohio State football. And just watching one of their games is better to me than watching a whole NFL season. And you know what, it doesn't matter if there was a playoff or not, I'd want Ohio State to win every game and I would live and die with them.

 

[Woody1968]

No moreso than Nebraska was anywhere near the best team in college football had they managed to beat Miami in 2001 after Colorado hung 62 on them and they didn't even with their own division of their own conference and ddin't even make their own conference championship game. Yet the BCS would have deemed them the champion...what's your point?

Who would you have put in the title game instead of Nebraska?

 

[TRON 2.0]

Who would you have put in the title game instead of Nebraska?

Ohio State.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

They'd likely drop further than that, in my opinion. But even if they don't, then they go from likely being #4, to being #7 or #6, which means a home game in the second round, plus a tougher first game. It would mean something...I doubt they would rest their starters. Actually, I am sure they wouldn't.

So, like I said, schedule matters.

But, worse, when you lose still matters. Polls still matter. All you've done is created a playoff for no reason, in that case. One which suffers all the same problems of the BCS while introducing other problems which I'll address below.

I guess so, but what more could Cincinnati, TCU, and Boise do? SOS means jack shit. Take the 100 players from Florida and take the 100 players from TCU and switch the teams completely. So now Tebow plays for TCU and goes undefeated, and the TCU players play for Florida now and go undefeated. Florida would go to the NCG. But we'd never know who was the better team. With this argument, there is no reason that these mid-major schools should even play football. Why play? You have no chance of going to the NCG. But good season, here is ur Orange Bowl. Have fun! Whoo hooo! And again, what if Ohio State or USC would have gone undefeated this year? Their season had nothing to do with Florida or Texas. Who gets left out then? And why? The real question is. How do we know that TCU isn't the best team in the country? Just because they played crappier crap teams than Florida did? They do have 2 wins against the top 25...that's as many as Florida and Texas combined.

1 - SOS does not mean jack shit. You will have to do more than throw out conclusions. Explain to me how it is "fair" to the Big Boys that they have to play schedules rated significantly tougher than those played by the mid majors. Why does Florida have to run the table against a 39th rated schedule while TCU just has to beat the bottom half of football with their 84th rated schedule?
2 - I don't care what team has what players. Either your 12 wins are more impressive than some other teams 12 wins or they are not. I don't give a fuck if Jesus is you QB or not.
3- A playoff will not determine who the best team in the country is. I have repeatedly established how a playoff is not designed to determine the best. You have to address that point before I will worry about your TCU might be better than Florida conjecture.

Okay, so if Auburn had, then who do you leave out? OU or USC? They didn't play crap schedules?

I'd leave out whoever was ranked #3 in the BCS poll. The BCS is designed to differentiate by otherwise like teams. It did its job in 2004. I don't really care who gets left out.

What more could the mid-majors do than leave their conference and go independent? Scheduling is a two way street. I'm pretty sure Boise and TCU would gladly schedule Florida and Texas for a home and home, but Florida and Texas won't do it. So how can you get pissed at TCU? Look at Florida and Texas's OOC schedule. It's crap!!! They only have a good SOS cuz of their conference games, that has nothing to do with scheduling.

What TCU and Boise do is not my problem. If they want to be considered for the National Title, then they need to do something. I'm not "pissed" at TCU, I'm not impressed by them beating the schedule they did. If OSU played their schedule and ran the table I would not consider the Buckeyes particularly legitimate, neither would the media (see 2007), so why should I be wowed with TCU's being undefeated against it?

What conference you play in makes a difference. The SEC is harder than the Mountain West. Sorry that's reality, but it is.

The games throughout the 12 weeks are still great. You still need to win. People still thought we had a chance at the NCG after our loss to USC (little did they know that we had no shot, even if we won). If you are so worried about the regular season not mattering, then make it an 8 team playoff. Lose 1, maybe you are still in, lose 2, and you are probably out. Right now as it stands, only 2 2 loss teams would make it. So...you'd still want to win all your games. Especially with the home field thing. You don't seem to think the home field advantage would matter. I think it would be huge, for fans and players. Even TV viewers, because it's cool to see different college stadiums and atmospheres. And imagine the Shoe or the swamp if it were hosting a game between to two teams for a chance to get to a "final four". Wow!!! But it seems you don't agree. And that's fine. Agree to disagree about the impact of home field. I think more than a 4 team playoff without home team advantage would ruin the game. You need home field advantage.

Wrong. If all you have to do is make a playoff, you schedule the weakest schedule possible. Gone is Ohio State Texas, Ohio State USC, Ohio State Miami Florida. Why would you schedule epic OOC matchups when you're simply looking for wins? Any great games are reduced to your in conference slate. You need to establish why "great games" during your 3 playoff weeks, or whatever, is more desirable than great games in September. You want it both ways, and you're not being honest with the process if you think Ohio State will schedule a possible loss when beating the shit out of YSU will serve thier post season services more.

I don't need to imagine the shoe or the swamp hosting a final four game. I saw Ohio State host USC. I've seen Ohio State host Texas... and so on... It being a "final four" game means nothing to me.

Again, what more could OSU do than schedule USC? It's a two way street. They can't schedule every good team every year. They don't even know who they are going to be. If you are going to just blame it on scheduling then that's shitty to the players and fans, who have nothing to do with the schedule. Why should I be fucked as a fan because Ohio State didn't schedule a tougher schedule this year. Who knew we should have scheduled Cincinnati instead of USC??? And again, I also believe that the sagarin SOS is bullshit. Because if you play the #70 team instead of the #99 team, you get a higher SOS. Who gives a crap, you are going to beat both teams. If your schedule is playing #3, #7, #10, #12, #98, #99, #101, and #102...your SOS would be lower than playing, #44, #46, #50, #55, #58, #60, #61, #62. Which one is more impressive??? I think the first one. Computer SOS is bogus.

It's not about fault. There's nothing anyone can do except try and find the best schedule in terms of strength, and balance that against the possibility of winning all your games. You're bitching about a team on the bubble, essentially. So, Ohio State doesn't qualify at #2... what difference is that to not qualifying at #9 or #17.

So, your solution to your opinion re: sagarins SOS is to think a MAC schedule and a SEC Schedule are equal?

Do you watch football at all? If your answer is yes, then can't you tell me that there is a difference between playing the likes of New Mexico State week in and week out and playing the likes of LSU.

You try and make scheduling sound so easy. It's not. And it really is a completely different argument. Scheduling sucks in this current system. It rewards Florida and Texas for scheduling nobodies. This current system tells a BCS conference team to schedule crap teams, and then all you have to do is win ur conference and play one tough game in the NCG and you win the NC. At least with a playoff, you could schedule crap games if you want, but you still have to win 4 games against the best teams in the country...and you still have to deal with your conference too.

Dude, the Big Boys play 8 or 9 legitimate teams every year, including conference also rans. They also play 3 or 4 OOC gimmes as a result. Well, the Mid Majors play 8 or 9 bad teams... or more... and at most 2 or 3 "big teams"

I'm sorry, Florida and Texas don't need to load up on huge OOC contests to impress me vis a vis TCU. You talk about fairness? You expect the Big Boys to play harder schedules against bigger teams to gain the same playoff berth a Mid Major gets for beating a bunch of assclowns?

Spare me.

I don't think scheduling could get any worse. A playoff system would at the worst keep it the same, and just add better games at the end.

Wrong. As above, Ohio State doesn't play USC. Ohio State doesn't play Texas. They schedule wins in these spots, so as to get closer to their playoff berth.

Maybe a playoff wouldn't be 100% fair...but it would be a hell of a lot closer to it.

Selective fairness.

Then I guess we should just kick the mid-major's out of the D1a. Kick the Big East out too.

if only I had such power. I'd glady kick the mid majors out.

And the Big Ten. Because that's the only reason that fictional 12-0 Ohio State, or Cincy, or Boise, or TCU shouldn't go to the NCG according to you. Their schedule, and it's all based on their conference schedule, not OCC. Cuz their OCC is as good if not better than Florida, Texas, and Alabama's.

No. Its not the only reason. It's PART of the reason. Not only does Texas' schedule rank some 22 spots higher than OSU's, I can simply look at Texas and Ohio State and know Texas is better. Why? Because I watch the fucking games.

Your unwillingness to accept that there is a difference between schedules in terms of strength has made this discussion appear to be about SOS alone.

You said you think TCU could run Texas' schedule too. I obviously can't prove you wrong since it's speculative. But, I bet you're in a minority on that opinion.

 

[zwem]

We all know it was Nebraska, but it's still a debate. Split title doesn't get us a true national championship. A playoff would.

We will never know who was better between Nebraska and Michigan. You find find that out on the field. Sadly we didn't get to watch the two best teams that year fight it out.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

If this is the argument that people really have, is that a playoff wouldn't be a true champion because teams would be in there that aren't deserving of being national champion, then you could say this for all sports.

Yes, and I would say that for all sports. The idea of a "true" champion is an illusion and if that's the goal of a playoff, it is unobtainable.

So I guess then that all sports championships are bogus? All of the Yankees World Championships? Bogus...they were just hot at the end. The Steelers Super Bowls? Bogus. The Stanley Cup? Worthless.

Baseball is a bit different. The reason is that in the "good old days" the world series participants were selected after having played 154 games. In the "good old days" there were, as there are with the BCS, only two teams which played in the post season. The American League Champion and the National League Champion. The important thing to remember here is that the American League and the National League have their beginnings as competing professional leagues. They were not under one umbrella, they were two separate and distinct entities. The regular season winner of one, met the regular season winner of the other to determine which league's champion was better.... more for bragging rights than anything... The American League could say "hey, come watch our baseball! Our best beats their best, so you may as well spend your money on our league instead of theirs"

The NFL was like this in some respects early on, when the AFL and NFL were distinct leagues as well, which also, like Baseball, eventually got together to determine which league's champion was "the best"

I don't know about Hockey history to say much about it, but I did a quick search and found that the Stanley Cup was originally simply "awarded" to the best team in Canada (under what process, I do not know) In 1917, the NHL became a league with 5 teams and was won by the Toronto Arenas. After winning the NHL, they went on to face the PCL Champion Vancouver Millionaires for the Stanley Cup. NHL and PCL were separate and distinct.

The point in this historical discussion is to illustrate the genesis of playoffs at all. These competitions were not born of trying to settle something as between one unified league. The regular season was the determinant factor. After each seperate and independent league had settled on its regular season Champ, only then did those two teams play for any particular reason.

What made playoff pools expand? Simple. Money. More teams wanted more games. As much as I agree with BL's assertion that the BCS is about money, the fact is - playoffs are also about money. Neither system is crafted with the sole point being to determine a "true" champion.

College football is very much unlike MLB, the NFL and the NHL. You have over 100 teams competing for the same Title. In the professional leagues, you have a manageable number of teams, playing a sufficient amount of games to determine which teams should move on. This is a critical difference in as much as every pro team will have the same opportunity to expect that their competitors for the title have had to experience the same level of competition in obtaining the berth for the "larger" prize. That's simply not the case in College football.

If there was some way to balance the schedules across these 100+ teams, then a playoff isn't - in my mind - as objectionable. But, as I've mentioned a couple of times now - a team like Boise State, going undefeated against a schedule that any number of teams could also go undefeated against does not deserve the same chance to compete against a team which went undefeated against a much stronger set of opponents. Ironically, this means I actually do care about fair, despite my protestations to the contrary. Again, we expect the Texas' and Florida's and Ohio State's of the world to play "big boy football" against "big boy" schools in order to qualify, and we don't expect the same from mid majors? That's not "fair." Not even close.

College football simply does not lend itself to a playoff, unless we treat each league as an equal, and give that league's champion a berth. This, as I argued in my playoff hypos threads a year or so ago, is decidedly not what Playoff people are asking for. No one wants to see SEC's Champ Florida v. Sun Belt Champ Troy in the first round. That game is a blow out in September, and it's a blow out in December.

Instead, Playoff people want a bigger pool of teams they perceive to be deserving. At the end of the day, all this is is a discussion about teams on the bubble. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, 2 teams, 4, teams, 8, teams, 16 teams.... There will be some team which will say "How come team X gets a bid, and we don't, even though we beat team X in October?" There will be some team left out which people think probably are better than some team that made it. A playoff doesn't do anything to solve controversy of this type. It was never designed to do so in the first place. All it does is move the discussion to teams standing in a different position, where ever that bubble team line has been drawn.

Ohio State's Final Four appearance in 1999? Nothing special. Shouldn't have happened, they weren't a top 4 team. (I'm assuming you still consider that it happened, even after all the crap that happened since)

You've done what Playoff people always do, and jumped to the position that we non playoff folks must be arguing that playoffs are not legitimate. They are a perfectly fine way of determining a champion. The whole point is that they are not a better way of determining a champion.

When one fairly considers the risks and rewards of these systems - BCS or Playoffs - I just see no compelling reason to make any change as the risks of a playoff simply outweigh the alleged benefits. The chief reason I cite is devaluation of the regular season. Again, Ohio State doesn't take a chance against USC or Texas in the OOC if there is no reason in scheduling a potential loss when you can go out and pay YSU for a beating. That's less compelling football, just like the NCAA basketball regular season is, in my opinion, far less compelling than the NCAA Tournament.

All I'm saying is why does anybody have playoffs?

Which I've now answered.

Maybe the way the championship works is the reason that college football is your favorite sport. Maybe it's just because college football is awesome, playoffs or not. For me I think it is the latter. Although what I realized more this year, is that I'm not a big college football fan. I'm a big Ohio State football fan. If Ohio State didn't have a team next year, college football would not be that fun for me. I'd enjoy the NFL more. But I love Ohio State football. And just watching one of their games is better to me than watching a whole NFL season. And you know what, it doesn't matter if there was a playoff or not, I'd want Ohio State to win every game and I would live and die with them.

It's telling to me that you've made this realization about yourself in as much as you advance a playoff system. At the end of the day, cutting out all the biases we have towards our favorite team, you just want the Buckeyes to have a shot at a National Championship that they simply did not otherwise earn. I would love it if Ohio State won 25 Championships in a row - under any format, BCS or Playoffs - and I won't tell you otherwise. But, removing this clear bias, and focusing on the sport itself, the concept is bad for CFB more than it is good.

The current system asks teams to strike a balance between a daunting schedule which keeps fans interested in filling 80, 90 and 100,000 seat stadiums and gaining enough Ws to get a shot. It's not an easy balance to strike, and sometimes despite your best intentions, it's not enough. So be it. A great OOC game on September 12 is just as good as a great playoff matchup on December 8. I don't see any reason why we should want to rid CFB of early season marquee games just so we can see some of these same type of games in December. It's just a stupid reason.

JXC, you want it both ways. It can't be both ways. This is the realization you have to come to in order to appreciate the consequences of what you're chiming for. Different does not mean better. You have to establish how and why a change is necessary, and in order to effectuate that change, it has to also be based on principle, not passion... with an honest assessment of the consequences as they relate to the alleged benefits.

 

[billmac91]

Yes, and I would say that for all sports. The idea of a "true" champion is an illusion and if that's the goal of a playoff, it is unobtainable.



Baseball is a bit different. The reason is that in the "good old days" the world series participants were selected after having played 154 games. In the "good old days" there were, as there are with the BCS, only two teams which played in the post season. The American League Champion and the National League Champion. The important thing to remember here is that the American League and the National League have their beginnings as competing professional leagues. They were not under one umbrella, they were two separate and distinct entities. The regular season winner of one, met the regular season winner of the other to determine which league's champion was better.... more for bragging rights than anything... The American League could say "hey, come watch our baseball! Our best beats their best, so you may as well spend your money on our league instead of theirs"

The NFL was like this in some respects early on, when the AFL and NFL were distinct leagues as well, which also, like Baseball, eventually got together to determine which league's champion was "the best"

I don't know about Hockey history to say much about it, but I did a quick search and found that the Stanley Cup was originally simply "awarded" to the best team in Canada (under what process, I do not know) In 1917, the NHL became a league with 5 teams and was won by the Toronto Arenas. After winning the NHL, they went on to face the PCL Champion Vancouver Millionaires for the Stanley Cup. NHL and PCL were separate and distinct.

The point in this historical discussion is to illustrate the genesis of playoffs at all. These competitions were not born of trying to settle something as between one unified league. The regular season was the determinant factor. After each seperate and independent league had settled on its regular season Champ, only then did those two teams play for any particular reason.

What made playoff pools expand? Simple. Money. More teams wanted more games. As much as I agree with BL's assertion that the BCS is about money, the fact is - playoffs are also about money. Neither system is crafted with the sole point being to determine a "true" champion.

College football is very much unlike MLB, the NFL and the NHL. You have over 100 teams competing for the same Title. In the professional leagues, you have a manageable number of teams, playing a sufficient amount of games to determine which teams should move on. This is a critical difference in as much as every pro team will have the same opportunity to expect that their competitors for the title have had to experience the same level of competition in obtaining the berth for the "larger" prize. That's simply not the case in College football.

If there was some way to balance the schedules across these 100+ teams, then a playoff isn't - in my mind - as objectionable. But, as I've mentioned a couple of times now - a team like Boise State, going undefeated against a schedule that any number of teams could also go undefeated against does not deserve the same chance to compete against a team which went undefeated against a much stronger set of opponents. Ironically, this means I actually do care about fair, despite my protestations to the contrary. Again, we expect the Texas' and Florida's and Ohio State's of the world to play "big boy football" against "big boy" schools in order to qualify, and we don't expect the same from mid majors? That's not "fair." Not even close.

College football simply does not lend itself to a playoff, unless we treat each league as an equal, and give that league's champion a berth. This, as I argued in my playoff hypos threads a year or so ago, is decidedly not what Playoff people are asking for. No one wants to see SEC's Champ Florida v. Sun Belt Champ Troy in the first round. That game is a blow out in September, and it's a blow out in December.

Instead, Playoff people want a bigger pool of teams they perceive to be deserving. At the end of the day, all this is is a discussion about teams on the bubble. It doesn't matter where you draw the line, 2 teams, 4, teams, 8, teams, 16 teams.... There will be some team which will say "How come team X gets a bid, and we don't, even though we beat team X in October?" There will be some team left out which people think probably are better than some team that made it. A playoff doesn't do anything to solve controversy of this type. It was never designed to do so in the first place. All it does is move the discussion to teams standing in a different position, where ever that bubble team line has been drawn.



You've done what Playoff people always do, and jumped to the position that we non playoff folks must be arguing that playoffs are not legitimate. They are a perfectly fine way of determining a champion. The whole point is that they are not a better way of determining a champion.

When one fairly considers the risks and rewards of these systems - BCS or Playoffs - I just see no compelling reason to make any change as the risks of a playoff simply outweigh the alleged benefits. The chief reason I cite is devaluation of the regular season. Again, Ohio State doesn't take a chance against USC or Texas in the OOC if there is no reason in scheduling a potential loss when you can go out and pay YSU for a beating. That's less compelling football, just like the NCAA basketball regular season is, in my opinion, far less compelling than the NCAA Tournament.


Which I've now answered.


It's telling to me that you've made this realization about yourself in as much as you advance a playoff system. At the end of the day, cutting out all the biases we have towards our favorite team, you just want the Buckeyes to have a shot at a National Championship that they simply did not otherwise earn. I would love it if Ohio State won 25 Championships in a row - under any format, BCS or Playoffs - and I won't tell you otherwise. But, removing this clear bias, and focusing on the sport itself, the concept is bad for CFB more than it is good.

The current system asks teams to strike a balance between a daunting schedule which keeps fans interested in filling 80, 90 and 100,000 seat stadiums and gaining enough Ws to get a shot. It's not an easy balance to strike, and sometimes despite your best intentions, it's not enough. So be it. A great OOC game on September 12 is just as good as a great playoff matchup on December 8. I don't see any reason why we should want to rid CFB of early season marquee games just so we can see some of these same type of games in December. It's just a stupid reason.

JXC, you want it both ways. It can't be both ways. This is the realization you have to come to in order to appreciate the consequences of what you're chiming for. Different does not mean better. You have to establish how and why a change is necessary, and in order to effectuate that change, it has to also be based on principle, not passion... with an honest assessment of the consequences as they relate to the alleged benefits.

Think I've had this debate before with you BKB, but I'm definately on JXC's side here. I don't think a playoff system would diminsh the regular season at all...not any moreso than an avaerage Nebraska team beating Texas and taking a BCS game spot.

I think a college football playoffs, with homefield advantage would be huge. Every year I do salivate over the hypothetical college football playoffs. Keep in mind, beyond the inherenet homefield advantage for a higher seeded team, but the amount of revenue generated for that team. A potential late season loss, will cost you at least a few million dollars in ticket sales, concession/merchandise sales, etc. Home games would also ensure sold out stadiums, something BCS games don't do b/c of poor match-ups, travel, and ultimately meaningless games.

Plus a playoff, IMO, solves the problem JXC pointed out. 3 undefeated teams from major conferences, and great lower division teams who haven't had a chance. In the current system, I just don't understand why non-major BCS conferences are even considered the same division? They have no chance at the title...all they play for is an undefeated season, and a chance to say they could have beaten the champ if given a shot. It bothers me Utah put it on Bama last year, but didn't have an opportunity for the championship. As JXC pointed out, scheduling is a 2 way street, and there isn't much a TCU/Utah can do when big name schools don't really want to play them, and at the same time, they're tied into their conference affiliation.

A playoff just makes so much sense to me...and I think kit'd be great for the sport. I really think people would wonder why it took so long if they implemented it. Several weeks of college playoffs would be heaven to me....that first weekend of 8 or 4 games would be ridiculous. I'd be glued to the TV...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Think I've had this debate before with you BKB, but I'm definately on JXC's side here. I don't think a playoff system would diminsh the regular season at all...not any moreso than an avaerage Nebraska team beating Texas and taking a BCS game spot.

Probably have. I like this topic a lot and feel pretty strongly about it which is why I tend to "over post" on these sorts of threads. I hope that doesn't come off as me simply trying to "shout down" the other side, as I have always been willing to accept a playoff if it's done for a real reason as based on some principle. At the risk of tooting my own horn, however, I have not yet been provided with any reason satisfactory to calm my concerns about the consequences. I'm not judge and jury, of course, but it seems playoff people aren't really interested in the objectives they use to support the argument(s). I'd be happier if someone said "I just like em better" and left it at that. I mean, that's not going to convince me, but it at least cuts through the crap and gives me one's real position on the matter rather than trying to trump up an opinion or preference with ill-conceived reasons.

I think a college football playoffs, with homefield advantage would be huge. Every year I do salivate over the hypothetical college football playoffs. Keep in mind, beyond the inherenet homefield advantage for a higher seeded team, but the amount of revenue generated for that team. A potential late season loss, will cost you at least a few million dollars in ticket sales, concession/merchandise sales, etc. Home games would also ensure sold out stadiums, something BCS games don't do b/c of poor match-ups, travel, and ultimately meaningless games.

You have to consider how these added benefits translate in to costs from the games you lose in September. Again, you have to be able to show me any reason that Ohio State will schedule USC, risk losing that game, when the ultimate goal is gaining enough wins to qualify. If the Buckeyes can play in a weak Big Ten, and schedule a bunch of low level also rans (like New Mexico State) and get a berth in these playoffs, I see zero incentive to schedule USC.

As time goes on, people lose interest. I mean, look at the Schott when the Buckeyes play St. Francis. Imagine the Shoe half filled when OSU plays yet another snoozer against NMSU.

Plus a playoff, IMO, solves the problem JXC pointed out. 3 undefeated teams from major conferences, and great lower division teams who haven't had a chance.

Sure, it might. But, why is this desirable? Again, isn't it really just a discussion about bubble teams? Someone with an argument always gets left out. Playoffs don't solve the issue - it simply moves the line to a different place.

In the current system, I just don't understand why non-major BCS conferences are even considered the same division?

Frankly, they should not be considered in the same division. New Mexico State, Ball State, Louisiana Monroe are simply not competing for the same championship. These teams uniformly cannot and do not compete with the big boys. They are scheduled wins. Now, that doesn't mean they should drop football. They should divide themselves up and compete for some other title. A FBS IAA if you will.

It bothers me Utah put it on Bama last year, but didn't have an opportunity for the championship.

It doesn't bother me at all. Upsets happen. Stanford wasn't better than USC in 2007. They simply upset them.

As JXC pointed out, scheduling is a 2 way street, and there isn't much a TCU/Utah can do when big name schools don't really want to play them, and at the same time, they're tied into their conference affiliation.

There is something they could do. They could get enough teams together to form a 7th BCS conference. I would probably consider a league with Boise State, TCU, BYU and Utah as "legit" as I think of the ACC or Big East. Of course, it can't be just those 4 teams and a bunch of scrubs, but there is enough quality Mid Major to put together an interesting league with "big boy" value. If they do, then they don't need to worry about whether Florida will play them. They have a conference that can carry the weight of "fairness" to the process.

A playoff just makes so much sense to me...and I think kit'd be great for the sport. I really think people would wonder why it took so long if they implemented it. Several weeks of college playoffs would be heaven to me....that first weekend of 8 or 4 games would be ridiculous. I'd be glued to the TV...

Only if it's a certain kind of playoff. Again, if you invite conference champs - which if you're principled you pretty well have to - you've got Sun Belt Champ v. SEC Champ. Snooze fest.

So, I guess what I'm saying is - in saying "I want the BCS top 8" you're simply saying "I want the problems with the BCS and the problems of the Playoffs all wrapped in to one" I suppose one could look at that as the "Benefits of the BCS and the Benefits of a Playoff" but as my hypos illustrated, the fact is this system actually hurts the mid major more than it helps. Likewise, it encourages a weaker slate of regular season games.

 

[billmac91]

Probably have. I like this topic a lot and feel pretty strongly about it which is why I tend to "over post" on these sorts of threads. I hope that doesn't come off as me simply trying to "shout down" the other side, as I have always been willing to accept a playoff if it's done for a real reason as based on some principle. At the risk of tooting my own horn, however, I have not yet been provided with any reason satisfactory to calm my concerns about the consequences. I'm not judge and jury, of course, but it seems playoff people aren't really interested in the objectives they use to support the argument(s). I'd be happier if someone said "I just like em better" and left it at that. I mean, that's not going to convince me, but it at least cuts through the crap and gives me one's real position on the matter rather than trying to trump up an opinion or preference with ill-conceived reasons.


You have to consider how these added benefits translate in to costs from the games you lose in September. Again, you have to be able to show me any reason that Ohio State will schedule USC, risk losing that game, when the ultimate goal is gaining enough wins to qualify. If the Buckeyes can play in a weak Big Ten, and schedule a bunch of low level also rans (like New Mexico State) and get a berth in these playoffs, I see zero incentive to schedule USC.

It depends on the system, but if you're putting together a playoff where each BCS conference gets a team, why not schedule big OOC games?? It'd help prepare you for a playoff, and if you lose, you still have a shot at winning your conference. I'm on the flip side of the argument...I think a lot of teams stay away from huge OOC games, b/c they feel a loss prevents any opportunity to go to the championship. Most teams will roll the dice playing a weak OOC slate, and hope they run the conference table, and then hope there aren't multiple undefeated teams. A playoff, where each BCS conference is included, creates more big games in the regular season, IMO.

As time goes on, people lose interest. I mean, look at the Schott when the Buckeyes play St. Francis. Imagine the Shoe half filled when OSU plays yet another snoozer against NMSU.

Strong programs will never be half-full. I don't think a playoff causes the NMSU game to be half-full. College football has history, pagentry, a different element than NFL. People want to see the future stars, a Heisman performance, the bands play, a college atmosphere. Not to mention, a loss to NMSU really hurts as far as seeding goes....so it still has huge implications. And if tOSU doesn't win the Big 10, they aren't in the playoffs with a loss to NMSU. My guess is attendance is exactly the same, if not stronger due to people still having hopes of a post-season.

Sure, it might. But, why is this desirable? Again, isn't it really just a discussion about bubble teams? Someone with an argument always gets left out. Playoffs don't solve the issue - it simply moves the line to a different place.

Because there should be a fair way to crown the champion, IMO. I know you say letting them play on the field doesn't show who the best team is all the time....but a playoff allows deserving teams an opportunity to win. Whether a 2 loss Big 10 conference champion is deserving is debateable, but its ridiculous when an undefeated Auburn has no opportunity to win the championship. And if Auburn gets the nod, its an undefeated USC or Oklahoma getting the shaft. Last year Texas and Utah were holding the bags. I may be in the minority, but having an undefeated Utah out there after putting it on Bama' leaves a very dissatisfying taste in my mouth. Give them a chance to prove it...

Frankly, they should not be considered in the same division. New Mexico State, Ball State, Louisiana Monroe are simply not competing for the same championship. These teams uniformly cannot and do not compete with the big boys. They are scheduled wins. Now, that doesn't mean they should drop football. They should divide themselves up and compete for some other title. A FBS IAA if you will.

I agree....the current system is a joke in terms of fairness to smaller schools

It doesn't bother me at all. Upsets happen. Stanford wasn't better than USC in 2007. They simply upset them.

I'm not sure how you truly know if its an upset though?? Did Utah really upset Alabama or were they the better team? Because I saw Utah and Brian Johnson march the ball pretty well, and hit John Parker Wilson all night. They looked legit to me...just like TCU looks legit, IMO. But TCU won't be given an opportunity to prove it...and even if they beat an Alabama or Florida in the Orange Bowl, it won't be for all the marbles. That's not good enough, IMO.

There is something they could do. They could get enough teams together to form a 7th BCS conference. I would probably consider a league with Boise State, TCU, BYU and Utah as "legit" as I think of the ACC or Big East. Of course, it can't be just those 4 teams and a bunch of scrubs, but there is enough quality Mid Major to put together an interesting league with "big boy" value. If they do, then they don't need to worry about whether Florida will play them. They have a conference that can carry the weight of "fairness" to the process.

That's not realistic, IMO. Conferences are set-up geograpchically for a reason. On top of that, it doesn't allow for a great sub-division team to be included if they aren't part of it. You still have your flash in the pan teams that are in a sub-division that would get left out in your scenario (a Ben Roethlisberger led Miami team, Chad Pennington and Randy Moss Marshall team, etc.)

Only if it's a certain kind of playoff. Again, if you invite conference champs - which if you're principled you pretty well have to - you've got Sun Belt Champ v. SEC Champ. Snooze fest.

Not necessarily...I think sub-division conferences would glady compromise. Keep the BCS formula and make the stipulation you have to be a top 20 BCS team to qualify. Again, I think it'd increase competition amongst sub-division competition. I think you'd see Utah and TCU schedule each other to make sure if they win their conference, they have solid OOC wins. Conference champions from the sun-belt with multiple losses won't qualify...they'll get their regularly scheduled Bowl game. Use the top 20 BCS qualification uniform for every league so there is no favoritism..if tOSU wins the Big 10 but can't crack the top 20, they aren't invited. It can be played around with, but the end result IMO, is a more entertaining regular season and post-season.

So, I guess what I'm saying is - in saying "I want the BCS top 8" you're simply saying "I want the problems with the BCS and the problems of the Playoffs all wrapped in to one" I suppose one could look at that as the "Benefits of the BCS and the Benefits of a Playoff" but as my hypos illustrated, the fact is this system actually hurts the mid major more than it helps. Likewise, it encourages a weaker slate of regular season games.

I don't see this at all. The current problem with the BCS is it tells you who your "supposed" best 2 teams are. 2/3rd's of the BCS is human, which is ridiculous. Just because some Harris pollster tells me Texas is better than TCU doesn't mean its accurate. USC was the greatest team ever in 2005, we couldn't beat Miami, tOSU was going to roll-over 1 loss Florida. And you can say these were upsets, but were they? If you're going to assume who the best teams are, why not just crown #1 at the end of the season?

Let the teams play it out on the field. I think there is huge opportunity for more money, a more compelling regular season, and more incentive to play big games with a playoff. And has been stated before in another thread....the 17th team has far little to complain about, than an undefeated team ranked #3, #4, or #5.

Let them play it out.

 

[Woody1968]

No. We know. Ohio State played this season with zero chance of playing for a national title, unless Texas loses to Nebraska. To think that Ohio State would be ranked of Texas makes you a delusional fan. You seriously think that voters would put Ohio State in over Texas? Basically the same Texas team who beat basically the same Ohio State team last year? The same Texas team who got snubbed last year? No way Texas would get snubbed again.

Dude, that is a perfect example of painting the endzones before you play the games. Nobody knows that, and your assumption that Texas would be ranked ahead of an undefeated OSU is equally delusional to assuming OSU would be ranked first. It's all speculation. Texas did not get "snubbed" last year. Oklahoma won the threeway tiebreaker in their division of the Big 12. Texas should have beat Texas Tech if they wanted to play for the NC. If they had gotten in to the NCG, they probably would have gotten crushed just like Oklahoma did. As it was, they barely beat us in the bowl game and guess what? None of it has anything to do with THIS year. You simply cannot imply what the will of the voters will be on any given week.

If's are what we all talk about here on the message board. It's quite a valid point. I know there are a lot of Buckeye fans out there that don't think it could happen. But next year Ohio State could very well be 12-0 and #3 or worse in the BCS.

Of course it could happen, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it, cause it hasn't happened yet.

My point is, we didn't know at the time, but it sure sucks that Ohio State didn't have a shot at the National Championship, no matter if USC makes that final drive or not.

Again, we don't know that, except in fantasy land. A win against USC would have been pretty impressive in the eyes of the voters at the time, and who knows how USC would have played after losing that game? Maybe they beat Washington, maybe they come together after the loss, who knows? At 12-0 with wins over USC, 10-2 PSU and 10-2 Iowa, We'd pe pretty attractive compared to a Texas team that beat the perennial powerhouse Oklahoma State as thier only win over a ranked team, and that played pretty mediocre football the first six weeks of the season.

Split titles don't fix a controversy. They cause more. There is still a debate about if Nebraska or Michigan were better in 1997. We all know it was Nebraska, but it's still a debate. Split title doesn't get us a true national championship. A playoff would.

Nothing fixes a controversy, that's what makes it a controversy. People will whine no matter what. Sometimes there is a legitimate gripe, sometimes there isn't. You bring up playoffs in other sports, but in most of those sports, with the exception of the NFL, which I don't really watch, and College Basketball, which is it's own animal, most playoffs take the form of a series of games, designed to minimize the posssibliity that the lesser team will advance by luck. That is why the Stanly Cup and the NBA Championship feel more legitimate to me than say, the NCAA tournament, where a 7 seed could get hot and win it all. Sure, it is fun when your team does it, but very rarely do we get to see the two best teams play for the championship.

As for the 1997 Championship, the only controversy I remember is that the Coaches handed their championship to Osborne because he was retiring. I certainly didn't think Nebraska, that got outplayed by Missouri in every phase of the game was better than tsun. I seem to recall the majority of people accross the country thought that the scummers were the legitimate #1, but, you know what? they both get to claim a share, so the system worked.

 

[Woody1968]

Ohio State.

Me too, but we were only 7-5 when it ended.