• 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
BB73;2086856; said:
Makes perfect sense to me. Cincinnati was an undefeated conference champion that was #3 in the BCS. They deserved a shot in a 4-team playoff, #5 SEC runner-up Florida didn't.
Click to expand...

Which is fine, but then we have to admit that having the best teams playing for the championship is not as important as having a playoff structure that is subjective opinion free. Including only conference championships will give you that objective standard, to be sure. But if a four loss SEC East team (say Georgia loses to Tech, Boise St., its west opponent and Florida) happens to beat a top ten SEC West team in the SECCG, you'll have a four loss team in your final four.

Again, that is cool to go conference champ. But that creates a system that is far more absurd on its face than what we had this year - folks picking Bama over Okie State. An almost un-ranked four loss team should never be in the mix. And if you switch that example to a four loss ACC Champion, putting that ACC champ over a team like 2009 Florida or 2010 Buckeyes is indefensible unless the goal of matching the best teams has been totally disregarded.

BB73;2086856; said:
I know you killed them in the Sugar Bowl, but the 2009 Florida team wouldn't deserve a shot in my 4-team proposal.
Click to expand...
My issue is not Florida being excluded, but in Cinci being there. More to the point, using my example, if that four loss SEC champ is one of the four, such a view is trading a system with some faults in the "matching better teams" selection process for one that is clearly, demonstrably worse in that regard.

Edit:

6a00d8341bf80c53ef015390e305b6970b-320wi.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2086955; said:
Which is fine, but then we have to admit that having the best teams playing for the championship is not as important as having a playoff structure that is subjective opinion free. Including only conference championships will give you that objective standard, to be sure. But if a four loss SEC East team (say Georgia loses to Tech, Boise St., its west opponent and Florida) happens to beat a top ten SEC West team in the SECCG, you'll have a four loss team in your final four.

Again, that is cool to go conference champ. But that creates a system that is far more absurd on its face than what we had this year - folks picking Bama over Okie State. An almost un-ranked four loss team should never be in the mix. And if you switch that example to a four loss ACC Champion, putting that ACC champ over a team like 2009 Florida or 2010 Buckeyes is indefensible unless the goal of matching the best teams has been totally disregarded.


My issue is not Florida being excluded, but in Cinci being there. More to the point, using my example, if that four loss SEC champ is one of the four, such a view is trading a system with some faults in the "matching better teams" selection process for one that is clearly, demonstrably worse in that regard.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine a 4-loss SEC team would be one of the four highest ranked conference champions, but I'll let BB73 do the dirty work on figuring out if that would be possible.
 
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2086929; said:
I don't disagree, but I don't understand how someone pro-playoff can make that argument against the CCG's. Isn't a playoff (pretty much) exactly the same thing?
Click to expand...

The problem with the CCGs is that it's a one-shot deal. You get an 8-0 in-conference record team from one division and a 5-3 in-conference record team from the other, and the 5-3 wins in an upset. Does that now 6-3 team deserve to be conference champion over the now 8-1 team just because of the one game?

Same scenario in a 16-team playoff. The #1 (or #2) seeded 12-0 team faces the #16 (or #15) seeded 9-3 team, and the 9-3 wins in an upset. Well, good for them, but in this case they ain't champions of shit yet because they still have three more games to win if they want to be national champions. Huge difference.
 
Upvote 0
The only way to do it is as a 16 team seeded playoff. Take the 16 top teams in the BCS. Seed them. Have the first two rounds at the higher seeded team's stadium and the semis and final rotated among the Rose, Sugar and Orange.

You're always going to have arguments comparing the last few in with the last few out, but none of those are really going to win anymore than a 14 seed is going to win the basketball tournament.

Fuck the idea of letting all 11 conference champions in. Nobody wants to see a 7-5 Troy team ranked 41st in the BCS standing make it. If your conference champion can't make the top 16, it doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2086962; said:
The only way to do it is as a 16 team seeded playoff. Take the 16 top teams in the BCS. Seed them. Have the first two rounds at the higher seeded team's stadium and the semis and final rotated among the Rose, Sugar and Orange.

You're always going to have arguments comparing the last few in with the last few out, but none of those are really going to win anymore than a 14 seed is going to win the basketball tournament.

Fuck the idea of letting all 11 conference champions in. Nobody wants to see a 7-5 Troy team ranked 41st in the BCS standing make it. If your conference champion can't make the top 16, it doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.
Click to expand...

^-- Right. Fucking. Here. --^
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;2086962; said:
The only way to do it is as a 16 team seeded playoff. Take the 16 top teams in the BCS. Seed them. Have the first two rounds at the higher seeded team's stadium and the semis and final rotated among the Rose, Sugar and Orange.

You're always going to have arguments comparing the last few in with the last few out, but none of those are really going to win anymore than a 14 seed is going to win the basketball tournament.

[censored] the idea of letting all 11 conference champions in. Nobody wants to see a 7-5 Troy team ranked 41st in the BCS standing make it. If your conference champion can't make the top 16, it doesn't deserve to be in the tournament.
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;2086955; said:
Which is fine, but then we have to admit that having the best teams playing for the championship is not as important as having a playoff structure that is subjective opinion free. Including only conference championships will give you that objective standard, to be sure. But if a four loss SEC East team (say Georgia loses to Tech, Boise St., its west opponent and Florida) happens to beat a top ten SEC West team in the SECCG, you'll have a four loss team in your final four.

Again, that is cool to go conference champ. But that creates a system that is far more absurd on its face than what we had this year - folks picking Bama over Okie State. An almost un-ranked four loss team should never be in the mix. And if you switch that example to a four loss ACC Champion, putting that ACC champ over a team like 2009 Florida or 2010 Buckeyes is indefensible unless the goal of matching the best teams has been totally disregarded.

My issue is not Florida being excluded, but in Cinci being there. More to the point, using my example, if that four loss SEC champ is one of the four, such a view is trading a system with some faults in the "matching better teams" selection process for one that is clearly, demonstrably worse in that regard.
Click to expand...

What's this 'we' shit - I don't have to admit anything. :biggrin:

I'm not convinced that a 4-team playoff is better than what now exists, I've never been a playoff guy. But it's being seriously discussed now, and I have these opinions if the BCS expands into a 4-team playoff:

1) It's better to identify the 4 teams before the January 1st bowls, rather than letting the bowls occur and then selecting 2 teams for a 'plus-1'. Having scenarios where 2002 tOSU or 2005 Texas need to play another game would suck, so pick 4 teams at the start and at least separate the top-2.

2) Only 4 conference champions (or 3 conference champions and 1 independent, if they're ranked ahead of all other conference champions) should be placed into the playoff. I realize that this could sometimes result in not having the 4 best teams. I want only conference champions to be selected in order to allow for non-conference matchups early in the year that won't have a negative impact on top teams being among the 4 selected teams - it's all based on conference play. I want that since I think it could make a huge difference in adding excellent non-conference games early in the year. Those outcomes wouldn't affect who makes the 'playoff', they'd just be for entertainment. This also makes the CCGs a psuedo round 1 of a larger-than-4 team playoff.

3) Taking more than 4 teams after the CCG's could do too much damage to the traditional bowls. I actually like the fact that a lot of teams get to end their season with a bowl win - expanding the playoffs means almost everybody ends the season with a loss, like basketball.

4) Taking only conference champions reduces the BS which ESPN can add to the process. I realize they'll still try to influence the seeding for the SEC team and its opponent, and try to get Texas picked as 1 of the 4 if they're the Big-12 champion but not an obvious top-4 team. And they'll try to shit on the teams from the conferences tied into the BTN and/or Fox Sports, because that's part of their long-term agenda. But I believe having only 4 conference champions in the playoffs would reduce the effectiveness of ESPN's aganda/propaganda.

5. The 4-loss Georgia SEC champion would probably be knocking the SEC out of the playoffs completely, since there would likely be 4 other higher ranked conference champions. I can certainly live with that scenario.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Bucky Katt;2086957; said:
I can't imagine a 4-loss SEC team would be one of the four highest ranked conference champions, but I'll let BB73 do the dirty work on figuring out if that would be possible.
Click to expand...
I missed Bill's "Proposal Post" that had the top 4 BCS ranked conf. champs.

That changes it a bit. But all we do is change the argument to whether the one or two loss SEC or B1G Champ is better than the undefeated Cincinnati or TCU/Boise State. So we trade the ESPN influence on the top two for ESPN influence on the top four. OK. So now number 5 and 6 bitch about not being in the top 4 instead of just number 3 bitching about not being number 2.

I'd rather the old bowl system and fans fighting about the final AP ranking. Not knowing who is number one is fine with me, and the debates between fan bases about who is better is one of the great things about the old system that I miss.

[censored] the BCS. Go back to random bowls and heated arguments.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top