-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter Bucklion
- Start date
JXC;1609113; said:
You've taken 16 teams out of the bowl pool. The bowls would be even more watered down as a result.
Upvote
0
JXC;1609115; said:
You have to establish they deserve the chance in the first place. They don't.
If Purdue can go and beat Ohio State don't they deserve the #8 seed?
You're not making an argument based on reason, you're making one based on passion - if anything. I don't have a problem with a slate of games which look compelling on paper. But, the games you identified are not materially different from what we already have in the current system. (of course, this assumes the BCS bowl selection process will produce match ups of highly rated teams)
Upvote
0
JXC
17-4 since 2001
And you miss the point. More teams would be playing for a chance to get into the playoffs late in the season than are now. Right now, it's pretty much just a small few that have a shot at the 2 team playoff. With a 16 team playoff, a ton more games would mean the playoffs. If it's butts in the seats, then I would say more games would mean MORE, and a small amount of games would mean less, even without the home field advantage. So I don't get the attendance argument.
Oh...and yes we will get some pretty neat match ups in the BCS. But only 1 will matter as far as the NC, instead of all 15 of the playoff matchups mattering.
Oh...and yes we will get some pretty neat match ups in the BCS. But only 1 will matter as far as the NC, instead of all 15 of the playoff matchups mattering.
Upvote
0
JXC
17-4 since 2001
Well...last year Mississippi was able to beat Florida, so didn't they deserve to play in the NCG? This logic doesn't' make sense in any system you have. If you want to follow this logic, then there should be no NCG at all, and we should just go with the final polls after the games are over.
Upvote
0
JXC;1609120; said:
Well, you're moving your goal now, but Ok..
You're looking at this from the perspective of bubble teams only. What does Alabama or Florida have to play for this weekend? What does Cincinnati have to do with Pitt? Why should Texas play Nebraska? They're all in, no? Yawn.
Once again, you have got to make some effort to establish that the number 16 team "deserves" any consideration in the first place. I don't buy it, and I doubt anyone else does either.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than a comment on bracket size. I might as well counter with "Well, lets take 32 teams then and have 31 games matter" and then include a bunch of exclamation points.
Upvote
0
JXC;1609126; said:
Well, what's the point of a playoff if not to "Settle things on the field?" I'm simply noting that that's a misnomer.
Likewise, I'd be fine going back to the old bowl system where final polls were taken at the end of the Regular Season and the Bowls were just rewards.
Upvote
0
JXC;1609131; said:
No, it's a comment on bracket size. The BCS is a 2 team playoff. You propose a 16 team playoff. Why not a 32? 64? Hell, why not get 8 more teams in D-I and have a 128? That's a shit ton of great games, no?
Upvote
0
JXC
17-4 since 2001
Nothing, except a seed. This game would mean a lot less.
Well Pitt would be playing for a spot in the playoffs. And Cincinnati would be playing for a chance to play at home for two rounds instead of very likely never at home at all. Right now what does this game mean? A shot at a BCS bowl? I mean, great...they are both going to go to a bowl anyway. It means less now than it would with a playoff.
I don't know, maybe you would get rid of conference championship games. Or you could have them mean a bunch and have conference champions get automatic bids. I say just scrap the conference championship games. I never liked them much anyway.
Again though...you are able to point out some games that might be less entertaining.
But what about USC/Arizona, Oregon/Oregon State, or Pitt/Cincy like you mentioned, or Oklahoma/Okie State last weekend, or Georgia Tech v. Clemson, there would be a great deal more games that would have bigger meaning.
If you want to make it 8 teams, that would be fine too. I just think that 16 is more fair, and would make for more excitement, more money, and more late season games meaning something. Maybe it wouldn't, but that's just what I calculate.
Upvote
0
JXC
17-4 since 2001
I think you are in the minority here. Don't get me wrong. I would be okay with this, too. I would actually love it if it were just about winning the Big Ten and going to the Rose Bowl. And if we get a national championship, it's more like "oh, that's neat". Decades ago nobody cared much about other schools outside their conference. As far as OSU was concerned, it was about going to the Rose Bowl, and winning it. Having a perfect season was a big goal too. Just win all the games. Then if we are voted #1 great, if not, oh well.
But times have changed. The game has become much more national, and people care more about how they compare to schools outside of their conference, not within their conference. 30 years ago, being the best in your conference is all that mattered. Now it seems like it means nothing, and it's all about being the best in the country.
I love the way it used to be, but it's not that way anymore, so I guess I figure why try to hold onto it? Let's just have a playoff, and take college football where everyone is trying to push it, into becoming a national game instead of a regional one.
Upvote
0