-
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!
- Thread starter Oh8ch
- Start date
[sarcasm]Yeah, we really do have a sarcasm font, and it's not really Verdana... well.. actually it is... the "sarcasm" font is only used when you're very serious[/sarcasm]
hmm.... it didn't work.
Fuck you Clarity! You fix this NOW! You have one week. No Joke!
hmm.... it didn't work.
Fuck you Clarity! You fix this NOW! You have one week. No Joke!
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
It's difficult to diminish a regular season that virtually no one pays attention to regardless. A playoff automatically makes the regular season less important, in direct proportion to the number of participants in the playoff. But sure, in leagues where very few people considered the regular season important in the first place, there's not much diminution.MililaniBuckeye;1826577; said:
Upvote
0
zincfinger;1826634; said:
How so? Although you may think allowing more teams to have a possibility at winning the title via the playoff than the current system (16 teams in a playoff vice the 2 teams in the BCS title game) diminishes the importance of regular season games, the regular season is still crucial in terms of playoff seeding.
Who here doesn't think that Wisconsin couldn't/wouldn't beat the shit out of Oregon and is the better team? Well, the current system prevents Wiscy from getting a chance at the title while giving Oregon that same chance simply because Wiscy lost by a point to the current #8 team on the road. Who thinks that Michigan State, a team that while getting clobbered by Iowa still beat a top-5 team and still is 11-1 and Big Ten co-champ, wouldn't be a worthy national champion should they win the four games they'd play in a 16-team format?
Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Michigan State all would be worthy champions should they run through the playoffs. But neither of them will get that chance because they play one of the toughest--if not THE toughest, this year--conference in college football.
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
I stand with Gordon Gee and say just go back to the bowl system let the ap and coaches' poll sort it out on January 2nd. That being said, I wouldn't cry if there was a 16 team playoff with home field involved. I will tell you that most mid-majors will bitch about having to play in opposing team's stadiums. They'll bitch about any attempt to not include all 11 conference championships (Yeah Troy!), and they'll bitch about anything that isn't pure, equal revenue sharing. Never mind that they're too stupid to realize that under such a situation the WAC would actually lose a participant this year.
The BCS was a half-assed compromise solution attempting to clear up the national championship picture while maintaining the integrity of the bowls, then later amended to giving the mid-majors somewhat of a shot and small slice of the pie. As with almost any compromise measure, it's a failure. Either kick it old school or get a real playoff.
The BCS was a half-assed compromise solution attempting to clear up the national championship picture while maintaining the integrity of the bowls, then later amended to giving the mid-majors somewhat of a shot and small slice of the pie. As with almost any compromise measure, it's a failure. Either kick it old school or get a real playoff.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
In my opinion, you've answered your own question. Ohio State's game against Wisconsin was huge (like every other regular season game) because it knocked OSU out of national title contention for all intents and purposes. If there were a playoff, it really wouldn't have mattered all that much. A bump downward in seeding is not remotely comparable in significance to a bump out of contention. Depending on the size of the playoff, one or two losses are largely irrelevant for the top teams, in contrast to the current system where every game is largely life-or-death in terms of national title contention.MililaniBuckeye;1826645; said:
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
I personally would agree with this halfway, the disagreeing half being that in my view, a big playoff would simply exacerbate the damage the BCS has caused relative to the old school system.ORD_Buckeye;1826660; said:
Upvote
0
ORD_Buckeye
Wrong glass, Sir.
The problem regarding the mid-majors is that they are never going to be satisfied. Right now, they think that the mere existence of a playoff will make them the equal of a Texas or Ohio State. Most are too dense to even understand what a drop in the bucket BCS (or even potential playoff) money is to a big time school.
What will inevitably happen is that, when a playoff doesn't magically create their dreams of true parity, they'll start agitating for more and more. It will never stop. I find it very telling that they frequently bring up the NFL as a model. Guess what, NFL parity is based on a whole hell of a lot more than just the existence of a playoff. To truly model college football after the NFL, one would have to put all the television money into a pot to be divided equally and institute some form of salary cap (cap on numbers of 5* athletes, player draft) Where the [censored] does it all end? My gut tells me that it isn't merely with a playoff.
What will inevitably happen is that, when a playoff doesn't magically create their dreams of true parity, they'll start agitating for more and more. It will never stop. I find it very telling that they frequently bring up the NFL as a model. Guess what, NFL parity is based on a whole hell of a lot more than just the existence of a playoff. To truly model college football after the NFL, one would have to put all the television money into a pot to be divided equally and institute some form of salary cap (cap on numbers of 5* athletes, player draft) Where the [censored] does it all end? My gut tells me that it isn't merely with a playoff.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oh8ch;1826668; said:
It proved they were 8 points better at home in the fourth week of the season.
Upvote
0
I'm starting to get behind the idea of a playoff. In my IMO, this season has done more to diminish the importance of the regular season than any I could remember. We have teams like Boise State with inflated rankings - and their supporters making a mockery of the level of competiton in the regular season to get to the postseason. We people apparently helping Auburn play out the string on a would-be championship season that will be wiped from the books before the decade is out. Conference championship games continue to proliferate, more and more a 6-2 team can have a good night against an 8-0 team and they can claim a championship over them despite having a worse record. We're about to have a setup in the Big Ten that makes a rematch of The Game a possibility - if M*ch*g*n ever gets their shit together. The regular season in college football is already dying, unfortunately.
Here's my latest line of thinking on a playoff system that I could get behind.
Here's my latest line of thinking on a playoff system that I could get behind.
- 8 teams. No more, no less. This is the best way to salvage some sort of meaning for the regular season.
- Six BCS conferences - each conference champion gets an automatic berth. If a conference gets promoted to AQ status, one must also be relegated in similar fashion to the EPL. Qualification for AQ status should be made somewhat easier, more relative and more fluid to reward conferences with the best quality of competition
- Two at-large berths.
- AQ school or not, teams must defeat a minimum of four teams with winning records from BCS conference to make the field. If a conference champion from an AQ conference does not meet that criterion, that spot is opened up as an additional at-large spot for that year. That means non-AQ schools will have to have an aggressive big-boy schedule in order to qualify.
- No special provisions for Notre Dame. Fuck off.
- Assemble a panel to select at-large teams, similar to how it is done in basketball. Comprise it of athletic directors from Divs. II, III & FCS in order to reduce conflicts of interest.
- There are four "real" BCS bowls, so each site can host a first round game. If you hold a third place game, there would be a total of four more games in the semifinal and final rounds, so each site would get to host a second game of one type or another on a rotating basis.
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
Not at all - I'm aware that one loss isn't an automatic bar to playing for the national title every season. Some seasons, because all the other top teams have lost at least one as well, you can still squeeze in with a loss. But this doesn't help your argument. In such a season, a loss wouldn't hurt a program's playoff seeding either. The bottom line is that we're comparing alternative scenarios where a single regular season loss either i) seriously harms your prospects of being in contention for a national championship, or ii) decreases your playoff seed. The former situation obviously makes every regular season game more important, compared to the latter situation.MililaniBuckeye;1826697; said:
Upvote
0
jlb1705;1826700; said:
Good thing I-AA had a 16-team format or else Tressel would be short one national title (1991). I don't recall any I-AA whining about YSU winning the title that year despite being ranked 11th (IIRC) entering the playoffs...
Upvote
0