• 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!

College Playoff

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
zincfinger;1492477; said:
But if we started at four, I would have zero confidence that it would be more than a couple years before the moans and groans started that it needed to be bigger, more inclusive. Exactly as happened with the 2-team playoff.
Click to expand...

That's a great point. We currently have a 2-team playoff. Many of those that loathe the BCS are simply arguing for the expansion of that number, and often suggest using the BCS system to determine the top-4 or top-8 teams.

Zinc, you're golden today. :wink2:
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1492477; said:
But if we started at four, I would have zero confidence that it would be more than a couple years before the moans and groans started that it needed to be bigger, more inclusive. Exactly as happened with the 2-team playoff.
Click to expand...
I agree with this to an extent, but in almost every aspect of every sport there is some problem that a group of people think needs fixed. Sure in a few years there will probably be more people whining and moaning for a larger playoff. But I think the number will be signifcantly lessend. Doing this is sort of like putting a band-aid on a wound, except your in a civilization where the band-aid is the best known method of treating wounds.(Hope that metaphor made sense) There will never be a system where everyone will be completely satisfied and that's because there is no perfect system. So the only thing you can really do is try and pick the system that satisfies the most people..... the only problem? No one can be sure what that is.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1492486; said:
That's a great point. We currently have a 2-team playoff. Many of those that loathe the BCS are simply arguing for the expansion of that number, and often suggest using the BCS system to determine the top-4 or top-8 teams.

Zinc, you're golden today. :wink2:
Click to expand...

All of you are golden today. It's all good discussion and I certainly can understand why those who want a playoff system actually want it, but I only wish that the dialogue from the opposite side (that has been presented here) were understood. Those that pander to the playoff crowd act as though there's no sense or reason behind the system as it has been for years. There's plenty of solid reason behind it...whether one agrees with it or not.
 
Upvote 0
AuburnBuckeye;1492532; said:
I agree with this to an extent, but in almost every aspect of every sport there is some problem that a group of people think needs fixed. Sure in a few years there will probably be more people whining and moaning for a larger playoff. But I think the number will be signifcantly lessend. Doing this is sort of like putting a band-aid on a wound, except your in a civilization where the band-aid is the best known method of treating wounds.(Hope that metaphor made sense)...
Click to expand...
It's a commonly used metaphor with a pretty clear meaning, but if you're applying it the way I read it, it seems a bit contradictory with what you purport to be your general view here. As I read it, the band-aid is the 4-team playoff, and the wound is the unfairness of the college football postseason. Is that right? If so, then you will be the one who will be immediately dissatisfied with the 4-team playoff and start calling for an 8-team playoff, maybe thereafter a 16-team playoff, and after that, who knows? The future is wide open, and all we know for certain is that it would be typical of our civilizational shortsightedness to apply the band-aid of a mere 4-team playoff to the wound of the national championship process, when what we really need is more along the lines of a 16-team colectomy.
 
Upvote 0
zincfinger;1492564; said:
It's a commonly used metaphor with a pretty clear meaning, but if you're applying it the way I read it, it seems a bit contradictory with what you purport to be your general view here. As I read it, the band-aid is the 4-team playoff, and the wound is the unfairness of the college football postseason. Is that right? If so, then you will be the one who will be immediately dissatisfied with the 4-team playoff and start calling for an 8-team playoff, maybe thereafter a 16-team playoff, and after that, who knows? The future is wide open, and all we know for certain is that it would be typical of our civilizational shortsightedness to apply the band-aid of a mere 4-team playoff to the wound of the national championship process, when what we really need is more along the lines of a 16-team colectomy.
Click to expand...
No, what I meant by that is that the 4 team playoff isn't going to solve all the problems, but it may very well be the best thing we have at this point. (This is also up for substantial debate)
 
Upvote 0
Mandel states that the Congress looking at the BCS is a waste a time.

SI.com

Why Congress' latest BCS hearing will be a complete waste of time

I was initially reluctant when my editor asked me last week to write a column previewing Tuesday's Senate Antitrust Subcommittee hearing on the BCS. Between writing a book about the politics of college football two years ago, chronicling SEC commissioner Mike Slive's ultimately anticlimactic quest last year to adopt a plus-one system and continually reaffirming my long-held, albeit unpopular, anti-playoff stance, it seems I've developed a reputation among some as a "shill" for the BCS.

Believe me, I'm no fan of the BCS, though perhaps for different reasons than the playoff proponents. The 11-year-old system, which is contractually scheduled to run until at least 2014, has irreparably destroyed the century-old tradition of college bowl games by moving them away from New Year's Day, watering down the matchups and stripping the individual bowls of their uniqueness. When addressing the real reasons behind the system's existence, BCS leaders have been continually evasive and often disingenuous with the public, masking their largely fiscally driven creation as some noble cause that benefits academia. Meanwhile, in rejecting the plus-one, they failed to address the sport's rapidly changing landscape, one in which it has become harder than ever to authoritatively distinguish two elite teams at the end of a season.

Cont'd ...
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Mandel states that the Congress looking at the BCS is a waste a time.
Click to expand...

Lets see, we have an inneficient beuracracy that will never change because it's members make too much money as the system is currently constructed. The profiteering is thinly disguised as some sort of morally just quest to protect the virtue of their constiuents who are by and large helpless to do anything about it anyway.

And someone thinks Congress might be able to fix that. Really?

Maybe when thats over we can get the mafia's input on how to better run the unions.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top