A Split National Championship in 2008?

[sandgk]

Best Buckeye - I think the main difficulty in arguing the merits of a playoff is that nobody actually knows what it will look like.

With the existing bowls, or

The existing bowls are mere consolation prizes, or

The 1st rounds (2nd round too) are played

-- at the higher ranked team's stadiums,

-- or at a neutral site geographically convenient to both teams

-- with regional seeding,

-- or not

Bottom line, we know what the BCS looks like, we know it's faults and how well it works (or not) in getting a #1 vs. #2 match-up, which is all it is truly intended to accomplish.

What we don't know is what the shape of a playoff would be, or should be. Thus, debating a playoff is debating the horse made by a committee before we know if it has become a camel or something worse. It is shadow boxing.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Best Buckeye - I think the main difficulty in arguing the merits of a playoff is that nobody actually knows what it will look like.

With the existing bowls, or

The existing bowls are mere consolation prizes, or

The 1st rounds (2nd round too) are played

-- at the higher ranked team's stadiums,

-- or at a neutral site geographically convenient to both teams

-- with regional seeding,

-- or not

Bottom line, we know what the BCS looks like, we know it's faults and how well it works (or not) in getting a #1 vs. #2 match-up, which is all it is truly intended to accomplish.

What we don't know is what the shape of a playoff would be, or should be. Thus, debating a playoff is debating the horse made by a committee before we know if it has become a camel or something worse. It is shadow boxing.

All excellant points Sandgk and I especially liked the horse point because it totally illustrates what the proponents of a playoff are doing.

.

All of your points are examples of some of the problems in the implmentation.
People say they want a playoff, a playoff of 8 or 12 or 16 teams, well ok then How doyou do it? What is your plan or diagram for implementing it? how do you get all of the interested parties to participate.
You know as well as I do that until these questions are answered it ain't a gunna happen, as they are wont to say down south.
Us inquiring minds want to know??

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

No... it rings hollow because it's not a position at all.

See, this is why we cannot debate you. If you feel that calling for a playoff is not a position, then you can counter anything I say with "Since you have no position I can stop listening to you because anything you say is flawed to begin with, so anything you say is going to be wrong."

And my question to you is this - why?

I will use one of your lines "I have stated that if you were reading my posts". That is a nice, although arrogant, way not to actually answer the question. I will answer that. Utah has beaten two team that were at the top of their conferences, Oregon St and Alabama. This shows that they have the ability to beat any team in the country. Just because they are in a "weak" conference and their strength of schedule is not as high as Florida's, it does not mean they are not as good as Florida or could not beat them. Just because they did not have any middle of the road pac ten teams to bump the SOS higher, it does not mean they are not as good as or could not beat Florida or Oklahoma.

how do you get all of the interested parties to participate.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Calling for a playoff, in and of itself, is a desired result and not what I'm calling a position. Rationale for it... that's what I'm asking you for. As for your rationale, quit worrying so much about how I'll dismiss it out of hand, and give me the chance to dismiss it at all. Who knows, maybe you'll have a reason I haven't thought of and which establishes the benefit of playoffs over the BCS. In other words, if you have a position - a rationale - for desiring a playoff, please... write it out. The mere fact that you favor a playoff is uncompelling, alone. I want your reason WHY. Why should there be a playoff?

I'll likewise disregard your continued ad hominem attack(s) and .... actually the whole second paragraph, since I'm not sure exactly what you're saying there.... I understand it to suggest your reason for favoring a playoff is because Utah showed it could play with the big boys. I can't believe that is the whole of your reasoning in favor of a playoff.... If it is, let me know, so I can tell you why I find that lone rationale insufficient.

Honestly, and I don't mean to make you even more worried about my "arrogance" or whatever, but I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that you have no reason for desiring a playoff at all. You favor it, that much is clear... but... it's begining to look like you don't have a reason other than your personal preference. I don't know... maybe that's why you seem to be treating this debate as some sort of personal affront.

Anyway, and once again...

What are the benefits of a playoff?
What issues does a playoff solve that the BCS does not?
Why should I see the light and favor it? What makes it desireable?

You don't owe me anything, but until you start outlining answers to these questions, I'm pretty convinced we have reached the end of worthwhile discussion on the topic.

Arrogantly yours,

BKB

 

[billmac91]

Do you not read stuff in parens as well? My discussion has never been that simple "win and you're in or in control" it's always considered body of work and overall performance. If you go 12-0 and don't get in.. it's easy, play a harder schedule. I've said that since the beginning this morning. If you're going to accuse me of bushing stuff off and contradicting myself, you'd be better served to use an example of me actually doing that than what you've done here.


OK? What more would you like to hear? I mean, you're apparently convinced by "they deserve it" and I'm not sure I can compete with that... but... give me a heads up on what it'll take and I'll see if I can be accommodating.

I don't see the point of Utah and all other non-BCS conference teams competing with BCS schools. It's stupid, because all they have to play for is a chance to win a non-BCS championship game and start a debate like Utah did this year.

You tell Utah to schedule harder teams. Is it Utah's fault that UM blows ass this year?? When they scheduled that game, I doubt they assumed they were scheduling a UM team that would be starting a walk-on. Sucks for Utah.

Utah also beat Oregon St. in a non-conference game. Heck of a win in hindsight after they beat USC and were Jaquizz Rogers short of winning the Pac 10.

So they schedule a big-time OOC, win another big OOC game, and go undefetaed in their conference. But they have no shot at the title.

This post isn't really a pro-playoff or Bowl game post.....it's just a post stating there is nothing more a mid-major could have done more than Utah this year. Unfortunately when you enter into OOC games, you don't know what the hell is going to happen to that program in 3 or 4 years as was the case with Utah/UM.

Does Bob Stoops leave OU next year, that program go into the tank, and people are calling out tOSU's OOC schedule when we play them in 2013 or whenever it is....

There are so many limitations in sheduling. It's a lot harder than telling Utah to have a better schedule.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Yep, Utah beat 'Bama, Boise State once beat Okie and one year Air Force beat an Ohio State team.

Shit happens.

Would you put money on the underdog if Alabama, Okie, Ohio State needed to win that bowl game to advance in a national tournament?

Sure, you'd hit one now and then, but you'd go broke if you applied that logic across a series of bets.

If the games had been Texas - Boise, Okie - TCU, Bama - Utah, how would you have bet? It's one thing to say a Utah deserves a BCS bid, it's another to put real, hard earned money on the possibility that size, tradition, conference strength, and program income won't outperform a hunch that any given Utah will out perform an Alabama. I fail to see how such upsets factor into a National Champioship consideration. I'll have to see a consistent pattern of MWC bowl wins over the twos and threes of the SEC, Big 10, Big 12 before I buy into any notion of equity.

upset factor into the national championship situation every single season... though i find it impossible (and intellectually as well as morally dishonest) to state that Utah upset Alabama. they didn't somehow steal a win they shouldn't have like Stanford did to USC last year. they freaking DESTROYED the Tide from the opening series to the final whistle.

i agree with the rest of your post, though i didn't get the bit about the guy in the red hat. i have no idea who you're talking about.

 

[lvbuckeye]

i'll jump in, though i'm not really a playoff proponent. (it's REALLY going to sound that way though.) i've stated IN THIS THREAD why i have a problem with the current BCS system, both in regards to the money and opportunity that is withheld from the "mid-majors" by the majors, and in the actual BCS selection process that has been tweaked so much that it it resembles its original iteration in name only. several more issues i have will come to light later. i have also stated a few thoughts about what i think might fix the current BCS system going forward, and not in a reactionary way that only looks backward.

BTW, your pat answer that Utah should just go out and make a tougher schedule is patently absurd, because it's not based in reality. the games are being played in real life. the next time a USC, Texas, Florida, etc schedules a home and home with them will be the first. why, you ask? because a) those teams can schedule a REAL patsy at home only and pocket the cash, and b) they have too much to lose if they should fail to prevail in the series. it's a win-win for the Utes. it's a lose-lose for the traditional power. call it whatever you like. not to mention the fact that Michigan and Oregon State were both on the Utes' schedule. it's not Utah's fault that M sucked balls, they only did what you asked them to do: schedule tougher opponents. they did. then the tough opponent failed to live up to its billing. how can you possibly knock Utah down for the shortcomings of the traditional power that they beat? didn't the game against Washington hurt the Buckeyes last year? well, they were good when we scheduled them, weren't they? you can only play who ever is lined up in front of you.

Anyway, and once again...

What are the benefits of a playoff?

a playoff would decide a champion just like not only every other team sport, but also every other level and division of football. in every iteration of football from Pop Warner to the Super Bowl the champion is settled with a playoff- EXCEPT major college football. does this not strike you as odd?

does a playoff decide the best team? no. does it decide a champion? YES. the reason that the NCAA does not recognize D1A (FBS, whatever) National Champions is that they don't exist. a playoff, while not determining the best team, would in fact determine a champion. one that the NCAA might even recognize. after all they recognize D1-AA, D2 and D3 national champions. i've already stated that determining the best team is impossible and for numerous reasons. but to reiterate, a playoff WOULD determine a champion, something that the current system legitimately does not accomplish, or if you want to argue semantics, accomplishes in name only.

further, the BCS national championship game is, by its very definition, a playoff. it may happen to be a one game playoff, but it IS a playoff just the same. so a playoff is already in place, whether you care to acknowledge that fact or not.

most people would like to see the playoff expanded in such a way that we aren't left with a bunch of questions at the end, and a general feeling of dissatisfaction with the end result. an expanded field would settle some of those issues, and a lot more people would be satisfied with the results.

What issues does a playoff solve that the BCS does not?

well, for starters, it will either make people like me who were backing Utah's case this year very happy, or it will make people like you who claim that they really don't deserve it because they don't play good enough competition in the regular season very happy. at the very least, one MAJOR question is answered: are the mid major "powers" actually win good enough it all. in the current system we are not afforded that answer, and even more damning we are not even afforded the opportunity to get the answer

further, we wouldn't have to sit here wondering how Texas would have fared if given a shot at Florida. we would actually get to see what would have happened if USC was given a shot at Texas, and we would get to see what would have happened if Utah got it's chance at Oklahoma. a four team playoff could have answered ALL of those questions that the current system does not address. in a nutshell, it would determine a true champion, and not an arbitrary champion based on arbitrary criteria.

Why should I see the light and favor it? What makes it desirable?

it's quite obvious both by your style of debate in this discussion and your condescending remarks that you are not interested in "seeing the light," so i won't waste my proverbial breath in trying to convince you. if you see no problems inherent in the current system, and see no benefit in answering the multitude unanswered questions that abound each and every year then i have nothing more to say in this regard.

You don't owe me anything, but until you start outlining answers to these questions, I'm pretty convinced we have reached the end of worthwhile discussion on the topic.

Arrogantly yours,

BKB

i answered your above questions, so how about we flip this around? give me a good reason other than the copout "a champion was determined" why the system worked this year. (it's a copout because the championship is arbitrary, which is the reason the NCAA doesn't recognize it.)

actually, other than in 1999, 2002, and 2005, give me one good reason why the BCS has worked in ANY year.

explain why Ohio State didn't deserve a chance in 1998, and why it's better that way.

explain why Miami didn't deserve a shot in 2000, and why it's better that way.

explain to me why Oregon did not deserve a shot in 2001, and why it's better that way.

explain to me why USC and LSU splitting the title is a good thing in 2003.

explain to me why Oklahoma deserved to be in there in '04, and why it's better that way.

tell me why Auburn didn't deserve a shot when they went undefeated, and while you're at it why the only undefeated team in 2006 had no chance to win it all. explain why this was a good thing.

i'll spare you questions regarding 2007. everyone knows it was a clusterfuck no matter what.

then, give me one reason why Texas didn't deserve a chance to play for the MNC this year.

then give me a reason why USC didn't deserve it either.

i won't bother to ask the same about Utah, because you've made it exceedingly obvious that you think Utah didn't deserve a shot because they haven't been playing at a high level for 80 years, becuase Boise State played the 90th rated schedule in 2006, and amusingly enough, because Michigan sucks.

the BCS has "worked" exactly twice in 11 tries -when there were only two undefeated major teams. a weak argument could be made that it has worked three times. succinctly, the BCS has failed most abjectly in its mission to pit the two best/most deserving/whatever teams against each other. is an 18-27% success rate acceptable? would a system that determines an honest and undisputed champion 100% of the time not be better? if not, then i would REALLY like to know the reasons why.

finally, i'm a bit of a traditionalist, though i can look at the situation objectively. truth be told, i'd just as soon scrap the BCS altogether and go back to the old system. it's obvious to me that the BCS doesn't work as intended. oh, sure, it pits two teams against each other. in that regard, it's a flaming success. in the regard of determining the true national champion, i am of the opinion that it is a flaming pile of shit. so what's the freaking point. it hasn't done what it was put forth in place to do. since scrapping the BCS and going back to the old system has no chance of happening, and since doing so would result in more of the same, and since nowhere on the horizon is even the faintest glimmer of hope that the BCS will suddenly get it's shit together and actually determine an honest and true undisputed champion, then i say what MUST be done is put a system in place that actually determines an honest and undisputed champion 100% of the time. hard to see that happening either though. the powers that be are more interested in making piles and piles of money off the current cow than actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work fixing a system with which the vast majority of people i've discussed the matter with have been dissatisfied.

 

[Best Buckeye]

See, this is why we cannot debate you. If you feel that calling for a playoff is not a position, then you can counter anything I say with "Since you have no position I can stop listening to you because anything you say is flawed to begin with, so anything you say is going to be wrong."


I will use one of your lines "I have stated that if you were reading my posts". That is a nice, although arrogant, way not to actually answer the question. I will answer that. Utah has beaten two team that were at the top of their conferences, Oregon St and Alabama. This shows that they have the ability to beat any team in the country. Just because they are in a "weak" conference and their strength of schedule is not as high as Florida's, it does not mean they are not as good as Florida or could not beat them. Just because they did not have any middle of the road pac ten teams to bump the SOS higher, it does not mean they are not as good as or could not beat Florida or Oklahoma.


$$$$$$$$$$$$

Your statement about money is not true at all, College admins and pres. have said repeatedly that they are more concerned about the students graduating than they are about the money.
They could have opted for more money a long time ago.

 

[cincibuck]

Every Major bowl doesn't want a playoff if it involves their money AND their tradition.

Or, unless it involves their money and their tradition.

And that is why I want to see either polls revert to viewing the bowl games as "exhibition games" or establishment of rotating, regional games and not a continuation of the send-money-to-the-Sunbelt system.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Or, unless it involves their money and their tradition.

And that is why I want to see either polls revert to viewing the bowl games as "exhibition games" or establishment of rotating, regional games and not a continuation of the send-money-to-the-Sunbelt system.

Then you should be able to answer my questions above as to "how" the playoffs should /can be implemented. Just how do you satisfy all the beasts?

 

[billmac91]

Your statement about money is not true at all, College admins and pres. have said repeatedly that they are more concerned about the students graduating than they are about the money.
They could have opted for more money a long time ago.

do you really believe it is about graduation rates, though?

If yes, I have some beautiful waterfront property.......

 

[Best Buckeye]

In part it is. Check just about antwhere and you will see that most are satisfied with the present situation.
Also they do not want the season extended, especially if it interfers with the next semester or exams.
They control the situation now and would definitly not want to lose that.
And these reasons are why they have not opted for the money.

 

[billmac91]

In part it is. Check just about antwhere and you will see that most are satisfied with the present situation.
Also they do not want the season extended, especially if it interfers with the next semester or exams.
They control the situation now and would definitly not want to lose that.
And these reasons are why they have not opted for the money.

graduation rates are fine among all of college levels of football, and they all have playoffs....that isn't the reason.

There are a million theorires out there....Lee Corso swears it is because the presidents feel they have distinguised themselves from the NFL, and it is good for college.

Others say it is about the money. While a playoff has the potential to make much more than the current system, does the money stay in the same hands??

I haven't heard anyone on TV that actually believes it is about graduation and classes. In fact, everyone always laughs at that excuse, and asks why other levels of competition seem to have zero trouble with it.

 

[Best Buckeye]

billmac91;1379001;]graduation rates are fine among all of college levels of football, and they all have playoffs....that isn't the reason.

Grad rates among athletes are not fine , thats why they came up with the rule about grad rates and losing elegibility. The smaller colleges don't have to conted with the larger bowls and the media being in the picture as much.

There are a million theorires out there....Lee Corso swears it is because the presidents feel they have distinguised themselves from the NFL, and it is good for college.

THat is in line with what I said about the college admins.

Others say it is about the money. While a playoff has the potential to make much more than the current system, does the money stay in the same hands??

Thats what I said , its about the money and the power and no one that is currently involved wants it to change unless they get more.

I haven't heard anyone on TV that actually believes it is about graduation and classes. In fact, everyone always laughs at that excuse, and asks why other levels of competition seem to have zero trouble with it.

Not a surprise here. Hmmmm the media wants a playoff and more money and the control that the admins have now so of coure they would laugh at anything.
Since when do you start believing the ESPN talking heads? Is that just because it fits your purpose?

I on the other hand have read and seen quite a few times what I have stated from college spokemen , not the media.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't see the point of Utah and all other non-BCS conference teams competing with BCS schools. It's stupid, because all they have to play for is a chance to win a non-BCS championship game and start a debate like Utah did this year.

You tell Utah to schedule harder teams. Is it Utah's fault that UM blows ass this year?? When they scheduled that game, I doubt they assumed they were scheduling a UM team that would be starting a walk-on. Sucks for Utah.

Utah also beat Oregon St. in a non-conference game. Heck of a win in hindsight after they beat USC and were Jaquizz Rogers short of winning the Pac 10.
....

There are so many limitations in sheduling. It's a lot harder than telling Utah to have a better schedule.

I don't blame Utah for scheduling Michigan, Oregon State... whoever... My position isn't that it's not ever enough. It's that this year, compared to OU and Florida, even with a loss each, it wasn't enough. Is it Utah's fault Michigan sucks? No. But, it doesn't change the fact that their win v. Mich. isn't as impressive as it would have been otherwise.

It's not just mid-majors who don't have hard enough schedules, by the way... If things didn't happen just so in 2007 Ohio State would have been hard pressed to argue that they deserved a shot playing the garbage schedule we had in 07. I will confess that Ohio State, being Ohio State was at an advantage over your BYUs and Utahs ... being a "traditional power" and all.... but... maybe Utah and BYU should have invested in football earlier, I guess. You can't get tradition because you're a cute mid major... it takes time.