A Split National Championship in 2008?

[Best Buckeye]

I had a cute mid Mary Major once and I cared less about tradition.

 

[cincibuck]

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?

I'm not in favor of play offs because of the inhierent differences between football and basketball/baseball/soccer, sports which readily lend themselves to such.

In fact, despite my romance with Buckeye football, I think one of the best things that could happen to the American education system, K thru Grad school, would be to move sports outside.

Realizing that that ain't gonna happen any time soon, I suggest that there be a tourney involving conference champions, champions to be decided by individual conferences, beginning Thanksgiving weekend. MAC Champ vs Big 10, MWC vs Pac 10, Big East vs ACC, SEC vs Conf USA, Big 12 vs whateverthehell they call the other teams out there. I know, we need more games, but that's the general idea, produce four regional champs.

Give Notre Dame an ultimatum, join a conference or STFU. Put an outright ban on games in domes.

Then rotate the remaining games through four regional bowl games, East in NY or DC, West in LA or SF, North in Chicago or Columbus, South in Miami or NO, and mix who goes where each year so that you don't end up with Ohio State in Columbus or USC in LA every year, or North vs West every year, simply rotate and let the poll chips fall where they may. Rotate the semi final games, one in the east, one in the south, next year one in the north one in the west, final game in DC.

Your truely,
John Lennon

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Well, thanks LV for stepping up where buckeyefrank has not....

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.

Getting us back to Friday when I asked "I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me...."

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.

As I just posted to Billmac, it's not an issue of trying. It's not an issue of fault. It is simply an issue of it being what it is... you ask me below about Auburn 2004... it's the same thing... comparatively, the schedule was not as tough. I don't just hold Mid Majors to the standard, LV... it's everyone. When Ohio State schedules Washington for 2007, we didn't know they'd suck... doesn't change the fact that they did. It's not fault. It's not lack of effort. It's just a fair view of the FACTS of any particular season.

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?

As I discussed at length already, the BCS currently decides a champion. This past year it was Florida. Whether if the process is "odd" or not is inconsequential with regard to wehther a champion is produced.

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.

This flies in the face of the fact that champions do exist at the DIA level... True the NCAA isn't doing the recognizing. But, Ohio State did indeed win the 2002 National Title. They even have a trophy to prove it. Likewise, a perfectly reasonable solution to your objection here would be for the NCAA to say "We will recognize the BCS Champion as the official champion" and... viola! we have a "true" national champion without a playoff.

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.

I've already acknowledged the fact.... several times. Still not bothering to read my posts, I see.

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.

Ah... personal satisfaction. Well, that's fine. Not a lot I can say to argue against that... at least you're not trying to bullshit me with "it's better" and then having nothing to establish that it is indeed so.

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

Well, I'm not sure we're owed an answer to this question. But, here again, at least it's a viable argument in favor of a playoff and one which the current system does not address..... Though, the BCS does actually adress the issue, but letting mid majors play (and win) in major bowl games. The BCS would even let them play in the championship, if they qualified for the game. But I will admit the chances of that happening are poor.

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.

Well... one of the great things about college football IS these discussions... Texas fans arguing "OH, we'd have beat SC" and SC fans arguing right back "No way in hell!" Why is there a benefit in taking the fun of it out of the equation? Likewise, as I addressed earlier - it's really not answering any questions... You say USC v. Texas and then Utah v. Oklahoma... Well... we still don't know how Utah would have fared against USC or Texas. So, if we wanted to we could well still argue the point(s) because even with a playoff... we really still don't know anything.

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.

I'm tired of addressing this shit... I'm no particular fan of your style either LV.... I will see the light when I am given enough evidence to convince me. Whatever you choose to do, and whatever benefits you see in discussing with me... I could give a fuck. You'll either win an argument or loose it, so far as I'm concerned. As hard as you posture against me... what prevents me from saying "Yeah? Well... you're not changing your mind either so I'm taking my ball and going home!"

Fuck that... if you don't want to argue with me, then don't fucking argue. Leave the rest of this personal shit off the board. I'll change my mind when I'm goddamned good and ready, and I don't need to hear from you and Buckeyefrank commentary on my arrogance and the like. As I said just above, it's just as easy for me to call the two of you bullheaded assholes. But, it gets us nowhere. So quit. Either argue the merits, of fuck the hell off.

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.

Because as I have previously discussed, it deferentiated between otherwise like teams and determined who could play for the title. the winner was indeed afforded a "real" title, witness the crystal ball each winner was awarded. Likewise, even now at its "worst" the BCS considers more relevant factors than simply looking at a team's record.

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

Because no team "deserves" any such thing. How about that? If they wanted a shot, then they should have beat MSU. It hurts.... but... tough shit. Life aint fair. Kansas State fans don't think it's fair either... Fuck them too. You lose, (Hell, even if you win em all) you're at the mercy of the remainder of your body of work during a season. If it's enough - more power to you... But I don't want to hear bitching when you lose, or schedule patsies and don't get a shot. The BCS makes the regular season MATTER like no other sport in the world. Each game is a must win...

So.. as above, maybe what's "Odd" about the system is actually a benefit?

I'm going to combine some of what follows because my answer is generally the same for some of your particulars:

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.

Body of work wasn't good enough comparative to the teams which did play for it. Would Miami 2000's body of work been enough in some other season? Probably... but not in 2000... don't play McNeese State, I guess. Tough shit. Life aint fair.... or .. is it? Oklahoma and Florida State were pretty damn good football teams too, you know. Yeah, Miami beat Flast that year.. but.. Cleveland beat the NY Giants this year... I don't see anyone saying Cleveland now "deserves" a shot.

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

Never said it was. In fact, 2003 is pretty much the perfect season to explain when the BCS went wrong... caved to popular opinion.

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.

OU "deserved it" more as against Auburn becasuse they played a tougher group of opponnents. Same thing as above... don't load up on teams like the Cidel, Auburn. You want to impress me? Go 13-0 against a schedule rated in the top half of the nation, at least.

And why is it better that way? It encourages teams to schedule better games... If my response has consistently been "You need a stronger schedule" then, it's not hard to see the benefit... schedules get stronger.. games get better... No more OSU v. YSU.. who want's to see that, really? I'd rather see OSU v. Utah... OSU v. some middling ACC team... better football.. more on the line... That's how the system in place encourages a "good thing" Better games... Regular season matters MORE than any other sport.

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.

Same as above.... body of work, while impressive... not impressive enough. Too bad, so sad. If it's about what you "Deserve" then why didn't we just give New England the trophy befor they played the Giants... isn't 18-0 enough to "prove" they deserve to be champion?

You deserve nothing. You earn it. Texas and SC didn't earn it. Sorry.. Texas and SC were very good teams... just like other teams who didn't get to play.. sorry... someone else was better than year, according to the system of determination. And, once again, even if we did have a playoff which included these two... the better team doesn't always win anyway.. so.. who cares?

That said, I continue to say FuckMich's argument is still the most compelling... a playoff which included Texas and SC would have produced a more interesting game than, say, Cincinnati v. Va Tech. But, MuckFich isn't trying to bullshit me with anything either, so hat's off to him.

 

[billmac91]

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.

my next question is, why would you then want a system that punishes Utah for doing the right thing??

BKB, do you actually thimk there is a scenario out there, where a 1 loss mid-major unseats two 1-loss teams to go the National Championship?? Because I don't ever see that happening.

And truthfully, I'd rather have 2 BCS teams in the National Championship. I'd have hated seeing Utah in the title game. Especially if they got run out of the stadium.

But this system is currently set-up for a National Title to only come out of a power conference......I guess I don't see the excitement starting every year knowing you are essentially only playing for a conference title to begin the year if you are in the MAC, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt, Conf. USA, etc....

If a mid-major were to win in a playoff format, so be it.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

What are the benefits of a playoff?
BKB

Strength of schedule. We can agree that Utah's strength of schedule is not what Florida's is. This only means that Utah was not given the opportunity to play better teams. The strength of schedule does not mean they could not beat better teams, it just means they did not have the opportunity to play them.

Here is my analogy. Lets say we have a track and field match. We have two world class pole vaulters. Both can get up to 6.1 meters. During one event one of these pole vaulters is sick and pulls out of the event. The remaining top vaulter's competition can only get 5 meters. If this vaulters only needs to get to 5.1 meters to win the meet does that mean he can't get to 6.1 meters. No. It just means he did not have to to win the meet. Could he have gone to 6.1 meters. Yes because he has in the past.

Could Utah beat top level BCS teams if it is give the opportunity? They beat Oregon St. and Alabama. There is no reason they could not beat any team if given the opportunity.

Put them in a playoff where they could play competition that is better than they have played during the regular season. The strength of schedule would even out. In an eight team payoff you will have to beat three teams to win the championship. On team will not play three chumps in a row. They are going to be playing the best of the best. Lets look at the top eight this year, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah, Texas Tech, Penn State. If any team can come out of that with three straight wins I would call that pretty good. It is not just that a team got hot. You could say that in the basketball tourney because a team has two days to prep for the second game of the weekend. They could be unprepared for that second game. There would be more time in the football playoff to prepare for your ext game.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

my next question is, why would you then want a system that punishes Utah for doing the right thing??

I understand it looks like punishment, but it's not. It's failing to qualify, nothing more, nothing less.

BKB, do you actually thimk there is a scenario out there, where a 1 loss mid-major unseats two 1-loss teams to go the National Championship?? Because I don't ever see that happening.

No. I don't think it's realistic either. The Mid major at issue would have to play an OOC filled with top 15 teams to bring the remainder of the schedule up. A) I wouldn't see a mid major winning 4 games against top 15 teams (and if they did, then I could see the word "deserve" being thrown around) B) No one would create such a schedule, knowing that the chances of them coming out 4-0 are poor.

And truthfully, I'd rather have 2 BCS teams in the National Championship. I'd have hated seeing Utah in the title game. Especially if they got run out of the stadium.

Agree.

But this system is currently set-up for a National Title to only come out of a power conference......I guess I don't see the excitement starting every year knowing you are essentially only playing for a conference title to begin the year if you are in the MAC, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt, Conf. USA, etc....

If a mid-major were to win in a playoff format, so be it.

I don't disagree that the cards are stacked in favor of the big schools. Seems pretty clear, and it is the engine that drives the financial beast. Lets face it, Ohio State Texas gets much more money changing hands than BYU v. Boise State.

I'm not particularly worried about "fair" though. Not that my personal worries trump this reason, or that they should... just saying for me, the fairness argument doesn't much move me.

Strength of schedule. We can agree that Utah's strength of schedule is not what Florida's is. This only means that Utah was not given the opportunity to play better teams. The strength of schedule does not mean they could not beat better teams, it just means they did not have the opportunity to play them.

They did have the opportunity to play better teams. They even put together a decent OOC schedule, and if Michigan was "normal" their schedule would have been better for it. Again, it's not a matter of fault.. the plain fact is, the teams they (Utah) beat were not as impressive, on the whole, with the teams OU and Florida beat. It is what it is. Could Utah beat these other teams? I dont' know... maybe.. probably? Whatever.. fact is they did not... it's not their fault... it just is what it is.

Here is my analogy. Lets say we have a track and field match. We have two world class pole vaulters. Both can get up to 6.1 meters. During one event one of these pole vaulters is sick and pulls out of the event. The remaining top vaulter's competition can only get 5 meters. If this vaulters only needs to get to 5.1 meters to win the meet does that mean he can't get to 6.1 meters. No. It just means he did not have to to win the meet. Could he have gone to 6.1 meters. Yes because he has in the past.

Could Utah beat top level BCS teams if it is give the opportunity? They beat Oregon St. and Alabama. There is no reason they could not beat any team if given the opportunity.

I've conceeded that perhaps they could. But, I don't see why this gives them any special consideration. Take Texas Tech... they could have beat either of OU or Florida too.. but that doesn't mean they should get the chance to. Stanford not only COULD but DID beat USC in 2007. That doesn't mean we have to accept them getting a BCS bid...

So, I don't disagree with your premise, but I don't see how the conclusion therefore follows.

Put them in a playoff where they could play competition that is better than they have played during the regular season. The strength of schedule would even out. In an eight team payoff you will have to beat three teams to win the championship. On team will not play three chumps in a row. They are going to be playing the best of the best. Lets look at the top eight this year, Oklahoma, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah, Texas Tech, Penn State. If any team can come out of that with three straight wins I would call that pretty good. It is not just that a team got hot. You could say that in the basketball tourney because a team has two days to prep for the second game of the weekend. They could be unprepared for that second game. There would be more time in the football playoff to prepare for your ext game.

And here, you make a good point. Once in the playoffs, I'm willing to admit that each team's SOS is essentially the same (though, that's probably not true either, as I'm sure time will eventually reveal). The problem still remains at qualifying for them. Who qualifies? National top 8? If so, we've done nothing to get rid of the voter bias everyone is worried about, we've just said 8 instead of 2 get to play. Same problem.

I gotta run, but I had more to say on this point... In any event, you could spare me some time if you are able to establish the plan for 8....

Is it 8 conference champions? or Top 8 Nationally?

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

And truthfully, I'd rather have 2 BCS teams in the National Championship. I'd have hated seeing Utah in the title game.

I would rather see the two best teams in the National Championship. If it were Utah versus anyone and Utah beat them like they beat Alabama, that would be the biggest story in sports.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

The problem still remains at qualifying for them. Who qualifies? National top 8? If so, we've done nothing to get rid of the voter bias everyone is worried about, we've just said 8 instead of 2 get to play. Same problem.

I gotta run, but I had more to say on this point... In any event, you could spare me some time if you are able to establish the plan for 8....

Is it 8 conference champions? or Top 8 Nationally?

I agree that this would be something we need to discuss in more details later and maybe in another thread. No mater how we decide, there are going to be people on the outside not happy.

 

[lvbuckeye]

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.

well, i have to call bs right there. it was only a couple years ago when they all agreed to add the 12th game.

 

[MaliBuckeye]

Adding stupidity to brilliance...

I gotta run, but I had more to say on this point... In any event, you could spare me some time if you are able to establish the plan for 8....

Is it 8 conference champions? or Top 8 Nationally?

My vote is for 6 conference champions and 2 at large. The 6 champs would be as a result of conference championship games, so the reality is that there would be a minimum of 12 teams in this thing. I place the same value in winning the conference that the NFL does, which keeps the emphasis on the regular season.

The "at large" would be the top two teams left (either mid-majors or Texas/Georgia situations), as long as they didn't play for their conference championship.

I know it's ridiculous, but so is the BC$. My $.02.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

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.

With the BCS format we have now they have extended the season another eight days. This year the first bowl game started Dec. 20th and the last one ended Jan. 8th. That (4 weeks) would be long enough for a playoff. There are ways to figure out how to fit a playoff in the same time frame as they are playing now.

 

[PatMicMac]

With the BCS format we have now they have extended the season another eight days. This year the first bowl game started Dec. 20th and the last one ended Jan. 8th. That (4 weeks) would be long enough for a playoff. There are ways to figure out how to fit a playoff in the same time frame as they are playing now.

You can't do that because of the many holidays in that stretch of 4 weeks. Teams don't have enough time to practice for each game of a playoff. One game is fine but week in and week out?

 

[Best Buckeye]

With the BCS format we have now they have extended the season another eight days. This year the first bowl game started Dec. 20th and the last one ended Jan. 8th. That (4 weeks) would be long enough for a playoff. There are ways to figure out how to fit a playoff in the same time frame as they are playing now.

PLease explain how you could set a playoff up and satisfy every facet involved.
Patmicmac is right too.

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

PLease explain how you could set a playoff up and satisfy every facet involved.

Because we want either everyone to be happy or no one happy. Everyone is not going to pleased with whatever system you come up with. Once you find a system that pleases that many people, let me know.

You can't do that because of the many holidays in that stretch of 4 weeks

The NCAA does not have any problem with having games on Christmas Eve, (Sheraton Hawaii Bowl), New Years Eve and New Years Day.

Teams don't have enough time to practice for each game of a playoff. One game is fine but week in and week out?

For a 8 team playoff that would run three weeks. I will use this year's calendar for dates. First round games Dec 20th, Final four New Years Day, Championship Jan 7th. That would give teams more than a week during the holiday week to give the kids time off to be with family. This would give the teams one week to prep for the Championship game which is what the get for conference championships. Also teams could get one bye week before the playoffs start on Dec 20th. Isn't one complaint about the BCS championship game is the long time from your last game to the BCS title game?

For a 16 team playoff I would eliminate one non-conference game and move the conference championships a week earlier.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Because we want either everyone to be happy or no one happy. Everyone is not going to pleased with whatever system you come up with. .

This is correct , but sadly for you, it's you who everyone voted to disappoint. Cuz what you want aint a gunna happen .