College Playoff

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Uh, based on the fact they've been doing it since at least the early 1980s, if not earlier. If they system had been too costly to the schools, they wouldn't still have the system. I base "success" on the fact that the schools have supported and have bought into they system all this time.

In other words, you can't give me financials and you don't know. You assume that since they do it still, it must be profitable. That may be true, I don't know. I do know that the current system generates a lot of money for those involved, so unless you can show how a playoff will do better than that, you provide no reason to change anything.

Quit looking at this through lawyer's glasses where everything in the world has to be provable, quantifiable, and accountable.

No.

Do you rate your marriage based on how much money you make as a family?

No. In fact, I could care less about money, but that's quite beyond the scope of this thread.

I hate to keep bringing up basketball, because it's not the model I'd like to use...but in this instance the question is relevant. Why do the top programs in college basketball schedule multiple, difficult OOC games every year?

I feel like it's more than just the fact that they don't have to win every game to make the tournament. It has a lot to do with making a statement for top ranking, for a challenge, for the fans, for a #1 seed in the tournament.

A top ranking makes little difference when all you have to do is make the top 8 to get "in" I'm not suggesting teams will go out to lose games or that they won't care. I am saying that when USC drops a game to Stanford, it won't matter, so long as they win the rest of them. Again, my position is not that there is somehting inherently wrong with that, I'm just saying there is nothing inherently right with it. (It, being giving USC a chance at a championship in such a scenario)

You may be right that in a playoff scenario we'd lose those games, but I highly doubt the AD's would do that unless EVERYONE did it...and then someone would NOT do it to get ahead of everyone else, then nobody would do it...(you get my point)

When they added the 12 game for everyone, who did everyone add? Aside from the PAC 10, every team added a cupcake, more or less. (And I'm talking about the big dogs here, obviously).

I can't honestly believe that there would be a difference between Ohio State/Bowling green in a non-playoff format and Ohio State/Bowling green in a playoff format in terms of fans who show up to the games.

A regular season Ohio State Bowling Green game would mean far less than a Ohio State Bowling Green play off game. I agree that Ohio State football is popular enough that they'd still do fine financially... but as DBB pointed out, and you acknowledged, attendence is indeed down in shit games against also rans.

I don't think that any perceived detraction from a game's "meaning" is going to stop so many fans from attending games that it would be a significant difference. The SLIGHT difference in the meaning of these games would only deter fans that buy tickets to a game based upon how "important" it is. Even in the tougher years in the tougher conferences...this only turns out to be 3 maybe 4 games a season...and it's not like you're going to lose 10,000 ticket sales each game...I would venture to say more like 1,000-2,000 (if any)...

Point being, we disagree that fan's (all over college football) attendance would change...

OK.. even if we agree that attendence won't change... where is the incentive to implement some other system when the one we have is working just fine on this metric? As I'm discussing with Mili - you have to provide a reason to change that which is working fine.

Clinch...what? Exactly? In a field of 14...simply clinching a playoff spot means nothing...hell, in a field of 1000 simply clinching a playoff spot means nothing. Positioning in the rankings would be JUST as important in a playoff as it is now...the fighting and jostling for the #1 and #2 rankings would be JUST as important as they are now.

That certainly explains why the NFL teams that have clinched make a habit of sitting their best players the last couple weeks of the season. What difference does a ranking make if all you have to do to be #1 at the end (which is the goal, no?) is be #8 or #14 to get the opportunity? I mean, hells bells... Tressel says it all the time, it's not where you start, it's where you finish.

Once again, this seriously makes no sense to me...

What's the difference between fans going to see a 6-6 Michigan State team WITH a playoff and without? Once a team loses 3 or 4 games in the current system they pretty much know that they're not going to win the national championship...do people stop going to the games?

Because they might still earn a bowl berth.

Fan's don't attend regular season games to see if they're going to go to the national championship...they attend regular season games to see if they're team is going to win THAT game...

Sure... I don't disagree. But, using Basketball as an example - when Ohio State is playing St. Francis, attendence sucks. When Ohio State is playing #1 Wisconsin, or Illinois etc.. it is a packed house. What's your explanation for that if all games and all opponents are equal?

Your definition of "fair" and "legitimate" are all well and good...but they are not universal. One could argue (and many have) that there HAVE been illegitimate BCS champs...

And yet, you have yet to name even one. Define the words for me, then. I'll address whatever definition you post, on your terms. Believe me, I've thought this through.

I don't necessarily agree with any of those people...BUT! and here's the HUGE POINT here...the fact that there can even be rational TALK about whether or not the BCS has produced an illegitimate champion means that IF a system can be put in place that would reduce these talks to simply irrationality, then that's an improvement.

Bull shit. First of all, you can't even name one illegitimate champ, much less is anyone here debating the point. As for your conclusion - I point again to Villanova 1985. They were not the best team in basketball that year. They got hot and won 6 games in a row. Big fucking deal. You see that as an improvement. I see that as horseshit.

Nobody can PROVE whether or not a playoff would do this, because it'd take an actual trial run to figure it out. I don't think anyone in their right mind is trying to PROVE that change would be better...

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for a vision... a reason to implement a change.. One does not change a highly profitable business on a hunch that some other manner of doing it might be just as successful, despite the potential risks. As is typical from the playoff side of the aisle, you skirt the issue. WHY CHANGE IT... WHAT IS THE POINT IN DOING SO? HOW IS A PLAYOFF BETTER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE? I get that you personally like it better. That's fine. But, that's simply a preference, it's not a reason.

...I feel like the jist of my argument at least is that I don't like a lot of things about the current state of affairs, and any change with a hint of making things more suited to what I would like to see is worth giving a shot.

I don't think you have fairly considered the risks as they are modified by the alleged benefits of a playoff. Once again, what about a playoff is sooooo great?

You said you want to have a system where you can see a 2008 Texas included... OK.. who should have been included in 2002 other than Miami and Ohio State? All you really are advocating is that the bubble move from one place (3) to some other place... and you assume there won't be contraversy because "everyone knows place X team has no real gripe" But that's crap, and you should be honest about it. If a team ranked, say, 8th can make it... how is who is 8th materially different from a team ranked 9th? Where ever you draw the line as to who gets included, the next team in line will feel slighted... and believe me, they'll bitch about it. Team #66 bitches about it in the NCAA Tournament.

I also don't feel like any SINGLE REGULAR SEASON game should knock a team OUT of title contention. When determining who should play for the title and who shouldn't, it should be an entire body of work...

I agree it is a body of work. And the current system is designed to reward that body as compared to other teams. Ohio State lost to Illinois in 2007, and late, and they still made the Championship game against a 2 loss LSU. One loss does not leave you out. It could, but it doens't have to. Likewise, what do you think makes the college football season so important in the first place? Because that one loss makes a big difference between controlling your desitiny and not. That's a BIG deal... That's pressure... and a playoff minimizes that. I don't like that one bit.

I guess I have gone further than what you were talking about with me, so I'll stop there.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

In other words, you can't give me financials and you don't know. You assume that since they do it still, it must be profitable. That may be true, I don't know. I do know that the current system generates a lot of money for those involved, so unless you can show how a playoff will do better than that, you provide no reason to change anything.

Why you continually insist that money is the reason reason/basis for change? Hey, how's this...pimp out your wife, it's more profitable for you despite that fact that it's not the best thing for her. Just because something generates more money doesn't mean it's the right way to do things. By the way, if you do implement the playoff system, the lower-seeded teams will make considerably more money being in a playoff game against a very highly-seeded team vice playing in a late-December bowl game.

You change the current BCS system because it's not the best why to determine the most deserving champion for I-A. The playoff system is not perfect, but you won't hear anyone in I-AA, II, or III complaining that their team was the best if they didn't make it through the playoffs and win the title game. Under the current BCS system, you have more than a few teams being left out of the title game with a legitimate gripe. You institute a 16-team format, then the #3, #4, or #5 teams won't be complaining that they didn't get a shot at the national title.

 

[BB73]

Hey, how's this...pimp out your wife, it's more profitable for you despite that fact that it's not the best thing for her.

He's done this, and she was happy with the upgrade.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Why you continually insist that money is the reason reason/basis for change? Hey, how's this...pimp out your wife, it's more profitable for you despite that fact that it's not the best thing for her. Just because something generates more money doesn't mean it's the right way to do things. By the way, if you do implement the playoff system, the lower-seeded teams will make considerably more money being in a playoff game against a very highly-seeded team vice playing in a late-December bowl game.

You change the current BCS system because it's not the best why to determine the most deserving champion for I-A. The playoff system is not perfect, but you won't hear anyone in I-AA, II, or III complaining that their team was the best if they didn't make it through the playoffs and win the title game. Under the current BCS system, you have more than a few teams being left out of the title game with a legitimate gripe. You institute a 16-team format, then the #3, #4, or #5 teams won't be complaining that they didn't get a shot at the national title.

Ok... fine.. leave money out of it. Go ahead and establish how a playoff is a better way to determine a deserving champion. Good luck.

Frankly, I can live with 3 4 and 5 bitching. It doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[TheRob8801]

BKB, with all due respect...I feel like you're missing my point entirely...and I'm not sure you even care to find it...so after this response, I'm going to just leave it alone...it's not worth the semantic debate...

Again, my position is not that there is somehting inherently wrong with that, I'm just saying there is nothing inherently right with it. (It, being giving USC a chance at a championship in such a scenario)

Nor am I, I'm simply saying that if giving a few teams that wouldn't normally get a shot at the title a chance to play for the national championship is a side-effect of of making sure everyone who DOES have a shot at the title get's a chance...that's a positive.

When they added the 12 game for everyone, who did everyone add? Aside from the PAC 10, every team added a cupcake, more or less. (And I'm talking about the big dogs here, obviously).

The 12th game is different from the 9th and 10th games...when you only have 2 OOC games to make a statement with, to make money with, to use to benefit your program...you're not going to play 2 teams that don't do those things...but even with the same amount of games as there currently are, I feel like if my proposal were to play out, teams would feel more comfortable scheduling the big OOC opponents at the beginning of the season for the same reasons NCAA basketball teams do the same...they can gauge their team's performance against a tournament caliber foe, bring a big paycheck to the school and they understand that a loss isn't going to knock them out of the opportunity to win the national championship.

Seems like an incentive for playing the big games, not a detractor.

A regular season Ohio State Bowling Green game would mean far less than a Ohio State Bowling Green play off game. I agree that Ohio State football is popular enough that they'd still do fine financially... but as DBB pointed out, and you acknowledged, attendence is indeed down in [censored] games against also rans.

I think our wires got crossed here...because I'm not talking about an Ohio State/Bowling green regular season game and an Ohio State/Bowling green playoff game...I wouldn't want that to ever happen...

I'm talking about Ohio State playing Bowling Green in the first few games of the regular season...the interest in that game isn't going to change if there's a playoff at the end of the season...

OK.. even if we agree that attendence won't change... where is the incentive to implement some other system when the one we have is working just fine on this metric? As I'm discussing with Mili - you have to provide a reason to change that which is working fine.

I have provided reasons...many of them, multiple times. I don't feel like repeating them, but just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they aren't actual reasons.

That certainly explains why the NFL teams that have clinched make a habit of sitting their best players the last couple weeks of the season. What difference does a ranking make if all you have to do to be #1 at the end (which is the goal, no?) is be #8 or #14 to get the opportunity? I mean, hells bells... Tressel says it all the time, it's not where you start, it's where you finish.

It would be nearly impossible to "clinch" a specific seed in college football without playing all of your games first. A loss in the final game of the season can be the difference between being #1 and #6 or #7...you know that...

The only way any team would ever "clinch" a spot and have a game that literally doesn't matter would be if one team was undefeated and everyone else had 2 or more losses...and if that were to happen in THIS BCS system, you don't think a team might sit the star athletes to get them some rest?

Sure... I don't disagree. But, using Basketball as an example - when Ohio State is playing St. Francis, attendence sucks. When Ohio State is playing #1 Wisconsin, or Illinois etc.. it is a packed house. What's your explanation for that if all games and all opponents are equal?

I never said that all games and all opponents are equal...I said that all early season OOC games are equal whether they be in the current system or a proposed playoff system...

And yet, you have yet to name even one. Define the words for me, then. I'll address whatever definition you post, on your terms. Believe me, I've thought this through.

Sure.

A fair system would allow for a number of teams with the skill sets to win a tournament of their peers to participate in one at season's end.

A legitimate champion would be one that survived and advanced through a pool of afore mentioned peers, in a black and white scenario where the pure finality of loss can't be debated and the same finality of a win can't be argued with.

Bull [censored]. First of all, you can't even name one illegitimate champ, much less is anyone here debating the point. As for your conclusion - I point again to Villanova 1985. They were not the best team in basketball that year. They got hot and won 6 games in a row. Big [censored]ing deal. You see that as an improvement. I see that as horse[censored].

Well, if we're using the above mentioned definition of legitimate, it'd be pretty easy to argue that there hasn't BEEN a legitimate champion...but for the sake of argument I could easily go back and say that USC '03 wasn't and Florida '08 wasn't...but that's purely based upon that definition, as Texas and Auburn were among their peers with the skill set to advance in a tournament.

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for a vision... a reason to implement a change.. One does not change a highly profitable business on a hunch that some other manner of doing it might be just as successful, despite the potential risks. As is typical from the playoff side of the aisle, you skirt the issue. WHY CHANGE IT... WHAT IS THE POINT IN DOING SO? HOW IS A PLAYOFF BETTER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE? I get that you personally like it better. That's fine. But, that's simply a preference, it's not a reason.

Yes one does...and it happens all the time, why do you think companies form mergers, layoff employees or change business models? They measure the risks with the underlying benefits...and if those benefits are deemed greater than the risks...they take a shot at it...

...often times it's impossible to detect whether the benefits will be as great as predicted, but the chances are taken anyway...

I don't think you have fairly considered the risks as they are modified by the alleged benefits of a playoff. Once again, what about a playoff is sooooo great?

I have considered them...and admittedly, there are a few risks that I can't say could be thoroughly addressed to the point where they become non-issues...but that doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be dealt with by someone who knows the innerworkings of such things much better than I.

...and nothing about a playoff is "sooooo great", I've never said that there was.

You said you want to have a system where you can see a 2008 Texas included... OK.. who should have been included in 2002 other than Miami and Ohio State? All you really are advocating is that the bubble move from one place (3) to some other place... and you assume there won't be contraversy because "everyone knows place X team has no real gripe" But that's crap, and you should be honest about it. If a team ranked, say, 8th can make it... how is who is 8th materially different from a team ranked 9th? Where ever you draw the line as to who gets included, the next team in line will feel slighted... and believe me, they'll bitch about it. Team #66 bitches about it in the NCAA Tournament.

That's not what I'm advocating...

The reality of the matter is that there's a clear line each year between teams that could win the national championship each year...and teams that can't...all I'm saying is that if you wanted to give opportunity to all the teams that can...and that line is at the #3 ranking, such as '02 the BCS works...but if that line is at the 4 or 5 ranking such as '03, '07, '08, '09...then the BCS DOESN'T work...a system that works great some years and then doesn't work as great other years is a system that has some flaws...

A playoff would reduce the opportunity for leaving a deserving team out of the field to a minute level...now of course it'd be up to debate where that line should be drawn (field of 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, etc...), but once it's set at a certain level (in my proposal that level is 14) it's generally understood that not every team included has the skill set to beat the top teams in the country...but it's also understood that every team that DOES have those skill sets are part of the tournament...

When's the last time there were more than 14 teams in D-1 college football that could beat "anyone" on "any day"?

I agree it is a body of work. And the current system is designed to reward that body as compared to other teams. Ohio State lost to Illinois in 2007, and late, and they still made the Championship game against a 2 loss LSU. One loss does not leave you out. It could, but it doens't have to. Likewise, what do you think makes the college football season so important in the first place? Because that one loss makes a big difference between controlling your desitiny and not. That's a BIG deal... That's pressure... and a playoff minimizes that.

You're absolutely right...the same pressure that comes with "controlling your destiny" during the regular season would not apply if a playoff were instituted...but in trade-off, it would be multiplied tenfold once the post season came around. That's TRULY controlling your destiny. Win or go home.

Also, take into consideration teams like Boise State, TCU, and Cincinnati of last year. They won every game in their regular season, and they certainly didn't "control their destiny". Texas, Alabama and any other team that comes from a "real" conference controlled their destiny.

Right now, there are only 2 teams that experience any national championship pressure post season. In a playoff format there would be NUMEROUS teams with the exact same amount of pressure. A BCS bowl win earns you nothing by pride and a trophy.

In my 14 team field, there would be 13 games in 3 weeks that EACH have national championship implications...as opposed to 1. As a fan, that's FAR more exciting than watching Boise State and TCU play for bragging rights.

I don't like that one bit.

Here's where the discussion becomes solely about opinion and not merit.

To some people, a small drop off in regular season intensity is worth trading for a major increase in post season intensity...that's where I stand

To other people, any drop off in regular season intensity is unacceptable, no matter what kind of intensity occurs in the post season...that's seemingly where you stand

That's just a matter of opinion...but it doesn't negate the merits of your argument or the merits of mine.

 

[TheRob8801]

Ok... fine.. leave money out of it. Go ahead and establish how a playoff is a better way to determine a deserving champion. Good luck.

You may not agree with it...but I've laid out, in plain English, why I believe a playoff would determine a "more deserving" champion. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it...but that doesn't mean it's not a sound argument.

Frankly, I can live with 3 4 and 5 bitching. It doesn't bother me in the least.

Well, if everyone took that stance on the issue...there'd be no debate, but seeing as that's not happening...we're here, doing this...

 

[Gatorubet]

Do you rate your marriage based on how much money you make as a family?

You met my ex then....

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

You may not agree with it...but I've laid out, in plain English, why I believe a playoff would determine a "more deserving" champion. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it...but that doesn't mean it's not a sound argument.



Well, if everyone took that stance on the issue...there'd be no debate, but seeing as that's not happening...we're here, doing this...

I was clearly addressing Mili with that post, Rob.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

A fair system would allow for a number of teams with the skill sets to win a tournament of their peers to participate in one at season's end.

I guess I don't understand who's in charge of determining who qualifies using this definition. You've drawn the line at a poll ranking of 14, I guess. What separates the skill set between 14 and 15? Why does #14 have that skill set, but number 15 does not? How is this proposal "fair" to those close to, but below the cut off? How is it "fair" that the upper echelon teams have to monkey around with 2nd and 3rd tier teams?

A legitimate champion would be one that survived and advanced through a pool of afore mentioned peers, in a black and white scenario where the pure finality of loss can't be debated and the same finality of a win can't be argued with.

Your first clause assumes your desired conclusion, you might as well have said "a legitimate champion would be one that was voted #1 by a group of writers." In a black and white scenario - I think the BCS rules aren't that confusing. Be ranked 1 or 2. Finality of a loss or win can't be argued with? Are you serious? Have you only been on the internet a week? It's 2010. Ohio State beat Miami for the title in Jan. 2003... But, they don't seem to think so.

Well, if we're using the above mentioned definition of legitimate, it'd be pretty easy to argue that there hasn't BEEN a legitimate champion...but for the sake of argument I could easily go back and say that USC '03 wasn't and Florida '08 wasn't...but that's purely based upon that definition, as Texas and Auburn were among their peers with the skill set to advance in a tournament.

Yeah, because you wrote your desired conclusion in the first clause of the definition. I'd agree that USC 03 wasn't.. since they didn't win the BCS title.

Yes one does...and it happens all the time, why do you think companies form mergers, layoff employees or change business models? They measure the risks with the underlying benefits...and if those benefits are deemed greater than the risks...they take a shot at it...

...often times it's impossible to detect whether the benefits will be as great as predicted, but the chances are taken anyway...

Not for no appreciable gain, which was my point. No one takes on more risk for the same benefits they already recieve, which is what I said no one does. A playoff might do just as well as the current system where it really matters - in their pockets. Until you can show how the playoffs would provide the spector of additional benefit than already recieved, you're asking for a business to take a risk simply for the sake of taking that risk.

A playoff would reduce the opportunity for leaving a deserving team out of the field to a minute level...now of course it'd be up to debate where that line should be drawn (field of 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, etc...), but once it's set at a certain level (in my proposal that level is 14) it's generally understood that not every team included has the skill set to beat the top teams in the country...but it's also understood that every team that DOES have those skill sets are part of the tournament...

Once again... we get words like "deserving" Who determines this? You're simply moving the line from 2 to 14. Like I said above, what seperates #14 from #15? #16? I get, and agree, that #15 can't bitch about being on the same level as #1... but they sure can say "Hey, we're as good as #14, dammit. Why do they get a shot when we dont?"

Or... in short, you've solved nothing.

When's the last time there were more than 14 teams in D-1 college football that could beat "anyone" on "any day"?

When was the last time there were more than 4 or 5? I don't know, and I don't care. I know that there are 65 teams in the NCAA tourny, so this metric doesn't appear to be a consideration, realy.

You're absolutely right...the same pressure that comes with "controlling your destiny" during the regular season would not apply if a playoff were instituted...but in trade-off, it would be multiplied tenfold once the post season came around. That's TRULY controlling your destiny. Win or go home.

So... the pressure of having to win for 12 weeks is trumped 10 fold by having to win 3 games in a row. Gothca.

Also, take into consideration teams like Boise State, TCU, and Cincinnati of last year. They won every game in their regular season, and they certainly didn't "control their destiny". Texas, Alabama and any other team that comes from a "real" conference controlled their destiny.

I'm not a fan of the mid major and their annual bitch fest. This goes to SOS, more than anything, but I'm just not much impressed with a team that beats a bunch of toasted pastries and then cries about not getting a shot to beat a team which beat a more impressive schedule. So.. I'm unmoved. No one was beating the drum for Ball State two years ago when they were undefeated (they ended up losing to Buffalo in the MAC Champ game). And why not? Because we all knew that, despite the record, they weren't in the same league as the top teams.

 

[BB73]

BKB, with all due respect...I feel like you're missing my point entirely...and I'm not sure you even care to find it...so after this response, I'm going to just leave it alone...it's not worth the semantic debate...

Contradicting yourself yet again.

You may not agree with it...but I've laid out, in plain English, why I believe a playoff would determine a "more deserving" champion. If you disagree with it, you disagree with it...but that doesn't mean it's not a sound argument.



Well, if everyone took that stance on the issue...there'd be no debate, but seeing as that's not happening...we're here, doing this...

 

[zincfinger]

Are you aware that I-A (FBS) and I-AA (FCS) have virtually the same amount of schools, and I-AA has had a highly successful playoff system for decades? There is absolutely zero reason why we can't implement the same system in I-A...in fact, it should be easier considering the fact the schools in I-A are much bigger (far more fans, much more money).

In my opinion, the primary difference there is that no one was interested in the D1-AA regular season in the first place. So the principle downside, as many of us see it, to instituting a playoff in D-1A - diminishment of the significance and excitement of the regular season - simply was never a factor for D1-AA. You can't destroy what never existed.

If a playoff system happens, fans will show up in droves and schools/conferences will see a windfall.

I don't have much of an opinion on this question, but assuming this to be true for argument's sake, why then do suppose there isn't more consistent support for a playoff among AD's and university presidents?

 

[Ttown]

Can we get a vbet on a playoff being installed by 12/31? 10,000-1 odds?

 

[BB73]

Can we get a vbet on a playoff being installed by 12/31? 10,000-1 odds?

Nope.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Can we get a vbet on a playoff being installed by 12/31? 10,000-1 odds?

Nope.

Why not?

Those odds look perfectly reasonable to me

 

[Ttown]

Why not?

Those odds look perfectly reasonable to me

It's just possible that BB73 said nope because the odds were too low. Perhaps I should have asked for 20,000-1?