• 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
SloopyHangOn;1835121; said:
I see.

Well, I personally would like to see a playoff. I'm in no position to suggest that it would be in any measurable way "better" by any metric, but I don't think anyone really could. The only way to really compare the success of a playoff in FBS college football (monetarily and by ratings to name a few) to the current BCS system is to actually have one to compare. It's literally the ONLY way to make a non-speculative (and thus factually based) comparison. So for anyone to really convince you that a playoff would reduce one of (in my opinion) the BCS's many flaws without bringing up new ones, there would actually have to be a playoff. I've read some well reasoned speculation on this subject on both sides of the coin in this thread, but you're not looking for a "can" you're looking for a "will". That's fair.

Conclusion: Can't argue for a "will" only for a "can". Stalemate.

In terms of the BCS eliciting an illegitimate champion, that's sort of a pointed debate, don't you think? Is the logic that if the BCS has never elicited an illegitimate champion (which is true) then there is nothing inherently wrong with the way the BCS crowns a champion and therefore no way to imply another method would be "better"?

That's sound reasoning, but as you've stated about Villanova in '85, during many years there are multiple teams capable of winning a playoff tournament and thus ALSO being crowned a legitimate champion. The BCS is designed to "place the best two teams in the title game". The legitimacy of that has been and is currently still up for debate. A playoff is designed to "place the best 4, 16, 64, etc. teams in contention for the title". The legitimacy of that has been and is currently also up for debate.

What is NOT up for debate, is the fact that both systems elicit legitimate champions.

Conclusion: In regards to legitimate champions, playoff = BCS. Stalemate.

I believe that you're capable of being persuaded, as any rational person would be. My only point is that many (if not all) of your main points of contention place you as an immovable force. That's the best position to debate from, but in my opinion not the greatest position to truly discuss from. That's all I'm sayin'.
Click to expand...

"The BCS is designed to place the best two teams IN THE REGULAR SEASON, NOT A POST SEASON TOURNAMENT in the title game..."

Not yelling at you with the allcaps, but for me, what I inserted describes where I believe a lot of us are coming from when we talk about keeping the regular season "meaningful". If that means having to go undefeated to get to a MNC, then that's the way I want it...

The only "ok, maybe" argument that will ever move me off my position is an actual 4 game run of EX: TOSU/Alabama, TOSU/Fla St., TOSU/Oklahoma, TOSU/USC. As a fan of this game, those are games even I could learn to love, but I would certainly miss the way it was...
 
Upvote 0
Saw31;1835118; said:
Yes, I'm not making my assumption because of the number of teams available. But where the money goes. It will follow the playoffs.

Once you've shifted the focus to a national playoff, the Bowls will have a much less valuable product to sell. There would be some sort of value of investment threshold that would have to be met for the sponsors to stay involved with the Bowls. The big Bowls would surely die because you would be left with teams/programs (UConn this year) who could never fill their allotments to places like the Rose Bowl. Many of those tickets are bought up by corporate partners now, who would surely leave to the more prestigious playoff games, meaning schools would be on the hook for even more tickets and hotel rooms then they are now. How many of these smaller programs would just decline bowl invitations because it made no financial sense, once the $17mil payouts are gone? In my guesstimation, a playoff kills the Bowls, probably completely...

And someone will, at some point, mention "using the Bowls" for the playoffs. Well then, out goes the "regular season is not made meaningless because you're fighting for home field" argument...
Click to expand...

That makes sense.

In that case:

Mark Cuban National Championship Playoff locations:
Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)
Sugar Bowl (New Orleans, LA)
Fiesta Bowl (Glendale, AZ)
Orange Bowl (Miami, FL)

FBS National Invitational Tournament locations:
Citrus Bowl (Orlando, FL)
Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX)
Sun Bowl (El Paso, TX)
Liberty Bowl (Memphis, TN)

Less money for individual schools, just as much (if not more) money for sponsors.

I'm sure there's a balance and a shift to the money I'm not thinking of here, but without really putting much weight into this idea, I think it could work. :lol:
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1835128; said:
No, the goal is not to make money, it's to play the game, represent your university in the best possible light, and to crown a champion in the best manner possible. Football just happens to be the biggest revenue generator because it's the most popular college sport.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious..... I mean.. sure, I get the "romantic" view of college football, but I think you're bullshitting yourself there, Mili.
 
Upvote 0
Mrstickball;1835098; said:
Look at the past scores in the BCS national championship vs. the Super Bowl. Only one BCS game has been decided by less than a TD since they started these games. Comparatively, five of the past ten Super Bowls were decided by less than a TD.
Click to expand...
14 out of 44 Super Bowls have had a margin of 1-7 points. That's ~31.8%. 4 of the 12 title games have had a margin of 1-7 points. That's 33%.
 
Upvote 0
IronBuckI;1835144; said:
14 out of 44 Super Bowls have had a margin of 1-7 points. That's ~31.8%. 4 of the 12 title games have had a margin of 1-7 points. That's 33%.
Click to expand...

emeril1_t290.jpg


BAM!
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1835095; said:
I think that some bowls probably would survive... maybe not... But.. I do think that the pool of bowl teams would certainly be worse. I mean.. what is it.. 70 teams out of 120 are going bowling? If you take the top 16 out of that pool, that number becomes 86 of 120. I'm not sure there are even 86 bowl eligible teams out there, so you'd have to have a reduction in the number of bowl games, or change the eligibility rules....

But.. either way, not a lot of folks lining up for tickets to watch East Nobody State (6-6) against Upper Midwest Technical Institute of Hula Hooping (7-5) knock skulls in the Iodized Salt Bowl.
Click to expand...

If there aren't enough bowl eligible teams after taking the top 16 teams for the NC playoff, then tough shit for the Iodized Salt Bowl and others like it. Still, some of the bigger bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, etc.) can be intergrated into the playoff system, and so get similar matchups they would normally have. For example, have three of the aforementioned five bowls (e.g., Rose, Sugar, Fiesta) serve as quarterfinal venues (with the fourth quarterfinal venue being one of the remaning bigger Jan 1 games, i.e., Outback or Captial One) on or near Jan 1. Then have the Orange and Cotton Bowls serve as semifinal venues a week later (on or near Jan 8), and the BCS title game a week after that (on or near Jan 15). This maintains the prestige of these bowls while enabling a bonafide playoff system.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1835148; said:
If there aren't enough bowl eligible teams after taking the top 16 teams for the NC playoff, then tough shit for the Iodized Salt Bowl and others like it. Still, some of the bigger bowls (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Orange, Cotton, etc.) can be intergrated into the playoff system, and so get similar matchups they would normally have. For example, have three of the aforementioned five bowls (e.g., Rose, Sugar, Fiesta) serve as quarterfinal venues (with the fourth quarterfinal venue being one of the remaning bigger Jan 1 games, i.e., Outback or Captial One) on or near Jan 1. Then have the Orange and Cotton Bowls serve as semifinal venues a week later (on or near Jan 8), and the BCS title game a week after that (on or near Jan 15). This maintains the prestige of these bowls while enabling a bonafide playoff system.
Click to expand...
That may well work in the LJB "Cut the fat" world, but it would be no help in the discussion where "home field advantage" is advanced as a reason to have a playoff (in terms of keeping the regular season meaningful) Even then, not a lot of schools have the alumni base to go to Pasadena Calif one week, and Orlando Fla the next. That said... maybe it wouldn't matter than much. I mean, I'm sure a lot of people who go to the super bowl don't have a particular rooting interest.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1835157; said:
Actually, yes it would have...
Click to expand...
Disagree. If Ohio State lost that game in a playoff world, who cares? They're still in, assuming they won out. It was more than 60 minutes of football on the line that day. A lot more. If Ohio State lost that game, the possibility of going to the Fiesta Bowl was more or less gone.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1835159; said:
Disagree. If Ohio State lost that game in a playoff world, who cares? They're still in, assuming they won out. It was more than 60 minutes of football on the line that day. A lot more. If Ohio State lost that game, the possibility of going to the Fiesta Bowl was more or less gone.
Click to expand...

On the flip side of that coin. What if that game was a first round playoff game?

Less or more exciting?
 
Upvote 0
SloopyHangOn;1835163; said:
On the flip side of that coin. What if that game was a first round playoff game?

Less or more exciting?
Click to expand...
Same excitement level, in my opinion. Having to win to stay "in" being "equal" in both cases. So, that raises the question - what difference does it make if that game is played in November, as it was, or December?

JXC and I had that debate two years ago, I think. I don't see any particular benefit in moving the "heart stopping moments" to some other month.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1835166; said:
Same excitement level, in my opinion. Having to win to stay "in" being "equal" in both cases. So, that raises the question - what difference does it make if that game is played in November, as it was, or December?

JXC and I had that debate two years ago, I think. I don't see any particular benefit in moving the "heart stopping moments" to some other month.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. No difference, in my IMO.

But, glass half full, I don't see any particular problem with moving the "heart stopping moments" to some other month.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top