College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

And this may be a very valid reason for the BCS conferences to oppose any change. I think you're absolutely right. Why go to Purdue and get stomped every season when you can go to Central Michigan and compete for a spot in the playoffs? This kind of system could really hurt the BCS conferences.

Probably true in real world opposition teams. But, for my part - as long as Ohio State remains "IN" that power structure, I'm less concerned with the name of the other teams. If it's Central Michigan or Purdue... I don't care. But... it would tend to "water down" the power conferences.... I suppose that's, at the end of the day, the same as "leveling the schedules" to some degree.

 

[Piney]

Piney - I must have missed the byes, but that said the first round you outlined doesn't have me salivating.

You bring up an interesting point about how the "little guys" don't stay little forever. I'll have to consider that point some more, but I'm also in favor of a "higher level" of play, so if that's a consequence of this system, it's a tick mark in favor of it.

You are correct that the 1st round games aren't interesting. Then again if Houston beats East Carolina all of the sudden it becomes Georgia Tech v Houston & Ohio State v Central Michigan. At least the Houston v Georgia Tech game might hold some interest. Then again this was an odd year that that each BCS conference winner was really a solid team. Playing the 'what if' card. What if Clemson and Nebraska won and throw in Oregon St beating Oregon. All of the sudden Troy, CMU & ECU/Houston are playing beatable teams like Clemson, Nebraska & Oregon St.

But the 'higher level' of play has been a bigger issue to me. What is said before every major bowl game? How did the layoff help/hurt the team? Did the Heisman/Award winner counting his NFL money or has gained 20 pounds from the banquet circuit? Football players are comforted by that weekly routine of film sessions/workouts, practice and then a game.

 

[OH10]

I've got an idea for a playoff: More than two teams!

That's progress and we can work from there. Until then, I will always see the way that college football crowns its "champion" as a joke. I've thought that since I was a child and I had to ask why every other sport, professional and amateur, had an inclusionary playoff system that worked. And no one has given me anything close to a rationale answer since.

Yeah, you never get in any other sport with a playoff.

"Villanova won it, but Georgetown was better." OOPS.

I have NEVER heard one person make that statement with any sincere vigor or hatred towards that 'Nova title. The same is true with '97 Arizona or '05 Florida. They are all regarded as the champions of the sport for those years.

I have also NEVER hear anyone argue that college basketball should some how trim its system down to two teams selected by gigabytes and journalists with agendas. If that were how we did things, Ohio State would already be eliminated (IN DECEMBER) because of Evan Turner's injury.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

The only 'playoff' model I would be in support of is adding maybe three games *after* the traditional bowl game line-ups. After the bowl games, there's usually a few matchups that everyone would want to see - USC/LSU in '03 for instance. So, I suppose the top four bowls (i.e. BCS games) would be round one, then the four winners go on and culminate in a 'national championship' game. I guess this would only add two more games since there's already 4 BCS games +1 nat'l title game.

So, I guess that would in essence be an 8 game playoff while maintaining the status quo to some extent. This setup wouldn't remove the southern/western regional bias of the current bowl setup, however. Maybe the second 'round' of the playoff would be played at home fields for some of the participants - higher seeds perhaps or some other determining factor...

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

That's progress and we can work from there. Until then, I will always see the way that college football crowns its "champion" as a joke. I've thought that since I was a child and I had to ask why every other sport, professional and amateur, had an inclusionary playoff system that worked. And no one has given me anything close to a rationale answer since.

Well, you've been asking the wrong question because it is faulty. Boxing does not have a playoff, but instead passes a belt around. Incidentally, there are only two people competing for that belt at any given time out of hundreds of possible competitors. Gymnastic and ice skating are a couple of other sports which don't crown their champion in a playoff format.

More to the point, you might have arrived at the answer "hmm... and no other regular season matters as much as does CFB's regular season" but.. it could just be coincidence.

For my part, it's not that a playoff won't "work" It's that there is no evidence that it is in and of itself a more legitimate way to determine a champion. To be clear - it is legitimate. But, so is the current system. In fact, a playoff opens the path for "illegitimate" champions (nova 85, NYG 2 years ago). We might argue about Florida 96, but no one says Florida is illegitimate.

In short, you have to establish a reason for change. You have to identify the goal, and explain how a playoff obtains that goal. You seem to rest on faulty, result driven, premises.

By the way, Playoffs began as two team exhibitions between competing leagues. They did not have their birth as a means to "Settle" anything. With that background, the road to proving how playoffs are better in some way than the BCS - in terms of their usefulness - is a tough road to hoe.

Good luck.

 

[OH10]

More to the point, you might have arrived at the answer "hmm... and no other regular season matters as much as does CFB's regular season" but.. it could just be coincidence.

I'll back to the rest of your points when I have more time. But this "reason" has never made any sense to me. Take a look at Texas this year. I rarely paid any attention to them whatsoever until the Nebraska game and that was only because the game was close.

It's almost as if its just some reason people throw out there to back up a system that sucks. But its not true. The regular season in college football sucks. Once your team loses more than one game, you're eliminated. Who cares after that? And what about the teams that had no control over their destiny? Does their regular season even matter?

Or how about this: What could Ohio State have done this year in the all important regular season to pass Texas or Alabama for the national title?

Its just a myth passed off as fact to perpetuate a bad system.

 

[Oh8ch]

The regular season in college football sucks.

You and I have nothing to talk about.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

The regular season in college football sucks.

 

[sepia5]

I'll back to the rest of your points when I have more time. But this "reason" has never made any sense to me. Take a look at Texas this year. I rarely paid any attention to them whatsoever until the Nebraska game and that was only because the game was close.

It's almost as if its just some reason people throw out there to back up a system that sucks. But its not true. The regular season in college football sucks. Once your team loses more than one game, you're eliminated. Who cares after that? And what about the teams that had no control over their destiny? Does their regular season even matter?

Or how about this: What could Ohio State have done this year in the all important regular season to pass Texas or Alabama for the national title?

Its just a myth passed off as fact to perpetuate a bad system.

I disagree that the regular season sucks, but I'm a huge college football fan. For that reason, I would be glued to the TV every Saturday regardless of whether we have a playoff. I suspect that if we're all going to be honest with ourselves, almost everyone that posts regularly on this message board would feel the same.

But we're not the ones that college football needs to worry will lose interest. It's the more casual fans whose interest is in flux, and, as moving to a playoff applies to them, I couldn't agree with OH10 more. I sincerely doubt the casual fan was tuning in to watch Iowa v. Minnesota in the final week of the season. How much more interest would there have been for that game had Iowa been playing for a potential playoff spot? How about Virginia Tech v. Boston College in week 6? At that juncture, it could have been billed as a game in which the loser would have been likely eliminated from the ACC race, whereas the winner would have stayed alive for a shot at the league title and a spot in a playoff to pursue a National Championship. Given the system that is currently in place, that game was largely irrelevant at that point, at least as it concerned the casual fan that was likely most interested in tracking who was going to win a championship.

 

[Oh8ch]

The regular season in college football sucks.

Actually, I guess I do have something to say because I believe folks who feel this way make up a large contingent of those who support a playoff. They are the folks who really don't want to pay attention during the regular season in any sport. Wait for the World Series, the NFL playoffs, and of course March Madness. That way if the 8th best team in baseball wins the World Series how am I to know?

There are a lot of legit arguments to be made for a playoff in CFB, but that the regular season sucks is not one of them. Used to be OSU couldn't even go to a bowl game more than once every two years and CFB was still the greatest show in town.

I would be glued to the TV every Saturday regardless of whether we have a playoff. I suspect that if we're all going to be honest with ourselves, almost everyone that posts regularly on this message board would feel the same.

But we're not the ones that college football needs to worry will lose interest. It's the more casual fans whose interest is in flux, and, as moving to a playoff applies to them

Exactly. And it is catering to those fans that would harm the sport. Screw 'em.

 

[OH10]

Actually, I guess I do have something to say because I believe folks who feel this way make up a large contingent of those who support a playoff. They are the folks who really don't want to pay attention during the regular season in any sport. Wait for the World Series, the NFL playoffs, and of course March Madness. That way if the 8th best team in baseball wins the World Series how am I to know?

The only thing about the regular season in college football that sets it apart from other sports are the rivalries. And that is an aspect that has absolutely nothing to do with the BCS vs. playoff debate. Its not as if Duke v. Carolina has lost any steam simply because they play a tournament at the end of the year.

Other than that, the BCS system waters down the regular season. You lose a game and you're most likely out. You're written off and the people that can or should care about your games are your fans only. Think about the last time anyone cared about the ACC title game? You can't, because the teams are already eliminated by that point. Think about the last time anyone really cared about any ACC game beyond Miami-Florida St. at the beginning of the year. Again, you can't because they don't matter.

That's what the Big Ten became this year after Iowa lost to Northwestern... an afterthought. No one in contention to play in the BCS title game? Who cares?

On the other hand, playoff races can come down to the wire and be just as exciting (probably moreso) than a Cincy-Pitt (which incidentally didn't end up making one iota of difference) or Alabama-Florida. There are typically more teams involved at the end and, as a result, more widespread intrigue. Not at all so with college football.

So, yes, in comparison to sports that have tournaments or playoffs, I do believe the college footballl regular season leaves a lot to be desired (i.e. sucks). Yeah, I said it.

Well, you've been asking the wrong question because it is faulty. Boxing does not have a playoff, but instead passes a belt around. Incidentally, there are only two people competing for that belt at any given time out of hundreds of possible competitors. Gymnastic and ice skating are a couple of other sports which don't crown their champion in a playoff format.

I don't see how those sports apply to this discussion. Boxing is an individual sport that doesn't crown an annual champion. Gymnastics and ice skating are subjectively scored, which is actually (indeed amazingly) more incomprehensible than the BCS.

So, with all due respect, I'm not convinced.

For my part, it's not that a playoff won't "work" It's that there is no evidence that it is in and of itself a more legitimate way to determine a champion. To be clear - it is legitimate. But, so is the current system. In fact, a playoff opens the path for "illegitimate" champions (nova 85, NYG 2 years ago). We might argue about Florida 96, but no one says Florida is illegitimate.

You're right. What they should have done two years ago would be to just match up the Cowboys and Patriots in the title game (at least I think that's what the Super Bowl would have been depending upon the Sagarin ratings). It would have made the regular season more interesting because I would not have had to pay as much attention near the end of the season to middling teams like the Giants.

And, as a Cavs fan, they should have just pitted the Cavs agains the Lakers in the NBA Finals last year (unless, of course, the coaches poll put the Celtics over the Cavs in hopes that KG would return from injury).

And yet the point is that the regular season is and always has been about (in fact, the title seems to suggest) making the postseason and jockeying for position for an easier run.

Or you could just show me one person who thinks that the Patriots should have been crowned the champion based on their regular seson; one fan that thinks they got robbed by having to go the extra mile and (gasp) earn it in the postseason. Find me one irate Patriots fan that's upset about the system instead of the result and I'll concede that there's some legitimate dispute about how the NFL crowns its champion.

 

[NateG]

If you are in the boat that a team like Nova was a paper champion then you are making an argument for teams that lose one game. Say OSU only lost to Purdue, they would still have NO chance at the title in the current system or if they played them in the playoff. Who cares if that game was in October or in December/January. I do, because that Nova team won the right to play for the title by beating better teams deemed worthy. If you want to call yourself the best, Podunk State should never beat you. So either way (playoff or BCS) the system is supposedly legitimate. Either don't lose to Podunk State in October or in Dec/Jan when in the playoff. I actually heard no one crying about the NYG beating the Pats until I read this thread. Who Pats fans?

Plus the NFL is King in America, not an opinion, the ratings and register reciepts prove it. They have a system, whether any of us agree or not, that the majority of America agrees with and accepts as legitimate. NBA/NHL/MLB do what they can with long seasons and 5-7 game playoff series. NCAA basketball is also a different animal due to the amount of teams and games. So a true comparison to any other league or sport outside of the NFL is a battle of apples and oranges. Maybe a difference of 3-4 weeks but alot closer than anything else out there.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I don't see how those sports apply to this discussion. Boxing is an individual sport that doesn't crown an annual champion. Gymnastics and ice skating are subjectively scored, which is actually (indeed amazingly) more incomprehensible than the BCS.

They apply because you said "since I was a child and I had to ask why every other sport, professional and amateur, had an inclusionary playoff system that worked." and I gave examples which established your premise as false.

You're right. What they should have done two years ago would be to just match up the Cowboys and Patriots in the title game (at least I think that's what the Super Bowl would have been depending upon the Sagarin ratings). It would have made the regular season more interesting because I would not have had to pay as much attention near the end of the season to middling teams like the Giants.

Again, I am not arguing playoffs are a bad way of doing things necessarily. I am saying they do not solve any problem of the BCS - and they certainly do NOT make a champion more "legitimate" in any sense.

Or you could just show me one person who thinks that the Patriots should have been crowned the champion based on their regular seson; one fan that thinks they got robbed by having to go the extra mile and (gasp) earn it in the postseason. Find me one irate Patriots fan that's upset about the system instead of the result and I'll concede that there's some legitimate dispute about how the NFL crowns its champion.

I'll do that just as soon as you point out to me the one team which the BCS has crowned champion who didn't "deserve" it. Show me the way this current system is broken. I'd prefer we not argue about teams which might have also had arguments for inclusion. That's really an argument about bubble teams, and it doesn't matter where we draw the line, someone's left out and they will bitch about it. So... the question, to be clear - Where is the illigitimate BCS Champion? Name that team. Why should they have not been crowned?

As for your question, though, I'm not a Pats fan - but I can tell you this... the Pats were a far superior team to the Giants. They lost only 1 game. If they lost that one game in October, they're champions. They lost it in February. Arbitrary. The better team doesn't always win. So, the point is this - don't kid yourself in to thinking playoffs aren't without contraversy, or that they settle anything.

Are they a legitimate way to determine a champion? Sure. Never said otherwise. But, there's nothing inherently "Right" or "better" with a playoff.

You need to establish a goal and address how a playoff meets that objective.

You're arguing for something you prefer, not something that should be compelled. Oh, and incidentally, with the exception of the Buckeyes and the Tourney, I don't watch a single minute of college basketball. Including Duke UNC. Why? I used to watch... so why did I stop? Simple. Those games don't matter in the least. There's little to keep my interest (as a casual fan of basketball).

 

[RhodeIslandBuck]

My Playoff System:

I think I figured out a way to implement a playoff without straying too far from the traditional way we've been crowning a National Champion.

Play the regular season as is, including conference championship games, conferences can determine their champion however they want. Since the final regular season games of this season were played on Saturday December 5, the first round of the playoffs would be played on December 12, between eight teams: The Champs of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10, SEC, the highest ranked champion of a Non-BCS conference, and the highest ranked team that does not meet any of the previous qualifications (Wild Card team). For example, the team's this year would be:

ACC: 9. Georgia Tech
Big 12: 2. Texas
Big East: 3. Cincinnati
Big Ten: 8. Ohio State
Pac-10: 7. Oregon
SEC: 1. Alabama
Non-BCS: 4. TCU
Wild Card: 5. Florida

Note: If any of the seven automatic qualifiers are ranked lower than 12th in the BCS Rankings, they would lose their automatic bid to another Wild Card team, however, all seven automatic qualifiers are ranked high enough, so no problems there.

So the first round games (played at the higher seeds home stadium) would be:
1. Alabama vs. 8. Georgia Tech
2. Texas vs. 7. Ohio State
3. Cincinnati vs. 6. Oregon
4. TCU vs. 5. Florida

Assuming all playoff games are won by the higher seed, the following Saturday (December 19) would be the date for the Semi-finals (Higher seed still gets home-field advantage):
1. Alabama vs. 4. TCU
2. Texas vs. 3. Cincinnati

Since the National Championship Matchup would already be decided at that point (Only one bowl game would have been played at that point), then all other bowl games could carry on as usual and the 6 playoff teams that did not reach the national championship could be pegged for the 4 Other BCS Bowls (along with two other teams).

So, by doing this all bowl games would still remain intact, and we would have a true National Champion because of the eight team playoff.

For example (assuming the higher seeds win the semi-final games) the BCS bowl lineup would be exactly the same as it is right now even with the playoff, and because the playoff ends on December 19 (or the 12th for some), it allows fans and family to arrange travel plans for their playoff teams' BCS Bowl Game.

It's basically adding one week to the regular season for 4 teams, and two weeks for another four, and I believe this could easily be implemented.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'll have to evaluate your system more closely, and over a course of year to understand it's effect... but I take issue with this statement:

and we would have a true National Champion because of the eight team playoff.

Please identify the BCS National Champion which you think is an improper Champion. When you are able to do that, I won't think you're using hyperbole when you say things like that.