• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

68 Team Tourney instead of 64, 65 or 96

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyesin07;1684833; said:
At risk of turning this into a "College football playoff vs. No college football playoff" thread, why is it that you insist on characterizing the BCS as nothing more than a "guess" as to who the two best teams are? It seems to me that almost every year there is a consensus as to who should be in that game. So what, exactly, does opening up the pool to 2, 6, or 14 more teams provide, besides, as Buckyle said, the chance that a 2 or 3-loss team gets hot and wins it all? Under your "settling it on the field is always best" train of thought, why not just let every single college football team into a giant tournament at the end?
Click to expand...
because it is not always clear as to who the best two teams are. sometimes more than two teams are worthy of an opportunity to compete for a national title. it seems ludicrous to me that each season there will be two and only two teams worthy of competing for a championship. furthermore, the championship games sometimes show that the loser likely wasn't one of the two best teams in the nation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;1684840; said:
yeah, because the two that are chosen for the cfb championship game are always the two best. :roll2:
Click to expand...

:lol: yeah, because the two that make the final game in the tourney are always the two best. :roll2:

If the current system is the best available to determine a "true" champion, then adding more teams should make them an even truer champion.
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE;1684879; said:
:lol: yeah, because the two that make the final game in the tourney are always the two best. :roll2:
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The goal is to crown the champion. You keep thinking its about finding the "best", whatever the hell that means. Its all so subjective and utterly pointless.

At risk of turning this into a "College football playoff vs. No college football playoff" thread, why is it that you insist on characterizing the BCS as nothing more than a "guess" as to who the two best teams are? It seems to me that almost every year there is a consensus as to who should be in that game.
Click to expand...

If there had to be a consensus this year in college basketball, it would have been Kentucky vs. Kansas. Turns out that consensus was wrong. Its a good thing we have a tournament to figure those things out.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;1684838; said:
because it is not always clear as to who the best two teams are. sometimes more than two teams are worthy of an opportunity to compete for a national title.
Click to expand...

Since the inception of the BCS, just how many times do you think this has happened? Serious question--you seem to toss around phrases like the BCS "guesses" which two teams are best, that there is only a 1.7% chance that they're getting it right, etc. I'd just like to know how often you think the BCS has gotten it wrong. Because then we can weigh those odds against the negative aspects of having a playoff (e.g., the importance of the regular season being diminished, the likelihood that the college equivalent of the 2007 NY Giants type team wins it all, etc.), and have an intelligent conversation about whether there needs to be a playoff.


it seems ludicrous to me that each season there will be two and only two teams worthy of competing for a championship. furthermore, the championship games sometimes show that the loser likely wasn't one of the two best teams in the nation.
Click to expand...

No one's saying the current system is perfect. None would be. But you seem to totally disregard the negative aspects of a college football playoff.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;1684840; said:
yeah, because the two that are chosen for the cfb championship game are always the two best. :roll2:
Click to expand...

I said this in my previous post, but how about telling me how often the CFB championship game hasn't pitted the two top teams, instead of simply throwing out generalizations such as, "There's no guarantee that it always includes the two two teams?"
 
Upvote 0
Because it's so rare and all :roll2: Oklahoma has done it three times now, and we already know the bias towards giving half of the nc game to the speed conference that chants their name.

08 Texas > ou
07 osu was not a top-2 team, let alone the number 1 team.
04 auburn > ou
03 Oklahoma got destroyed in the ccg by a mediocre opponent, yet #1 USC was left out because of them.

There's an argument to be made for auburn being involved in 04.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1685131; said:
Because it's so rare and all :roll2: Oklahoma has done it three times now, and we already know the bias towards giving half of the nc game to the speed conference that chants their name.

08 Texas > ou
07 osu was not a top-2 team, let alone the number 1 team.
04 auburn > ou
03 Oklahoma got destroyed in the ccg by a mediocre opponent, yet #1 USC was left out because of them.

There's an argument to be made for auburn being involved in 04.
Click to expand...

IMO, at least two of the four you listed are subject to argument. That aside, I still don't believe this demonstrates enough to counteract the negative aspects of a playoff. Among other things, as great as the NCAA tournament is, it has rendered the college basketball regular season virtually meaningless. The college football season as it currently is? The exact opposite.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top