• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

College Playoff

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
Sports radio out here in the PNW summarized the B1G announcement like this:

- agree with 95% of what was shared.
- concerned that it's a power grab by Delaney/B1G.

I found it particularly funny, because (outside of LA) the Pac-12 would need the support of a conference like the B1G in order to have much of a say in bidding out other cities for the championship. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face Pac-12.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2106760; said:
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with a team having a 9-7 record and a negative scoring differential in the regular season winning the Super Bowl really can't criticize a 16-team playoff.
Click to expand...

This right here is one of a few reasons why I don't have any interest in a 16 team playoff.

I realize I'm in the minority, but I have always liked the bowl systems as-is.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2106789; said:
At least if they use the BCS rankings, and not automatic berths (conference champs, etc.) then at worst is you'll have some 9-3 teams.
Click to expand...
Better yet, if they based it on the BCS rankings and restricted it to a 2-team playoff, the worst you would normally see would be a 1-loss team.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2106789; said:
At least if they use the BCS rankings, and not automatic berths (conference champs, etc.) then at worst is you'll have some 9-3 teams.
Click to expand...

I'm still against a playoff - even after the train wreck that the airplane crashed into that was the 2011 season. But if there's going to be a playoff, I want to see either A) completely alter the conferences that get automatic bids, or B) get rid of the automatic bids. 8-4 Pitt (approximately) should have no right to be in a BCS game, and has no right having a shot (however long that shot is) at a national championship. I'd prefer option B, but if conference auto-bids are required to get this done, at least put a lot of stipulations on it. Maybe require a conference championship game victory AND 10 wins.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;2106760; said:
Anyone who doesn't have a problem with a team having a 9-7 record and a negative scoring differential in the regular season winning the Super Bowl really can't criticize a 16-team playoff.
Click to expand...

The NFL doesn't let teams stack their schedules with 3-4 Cornfield Techs and 8 of 12 games at home, so even the good teams are going to lose some games. If the Giants got to play one third of their games against semi-pro teams and two thirds of them at home they would've gone 13-3 at worst.

The reality is most big name contending college teams have 2-3 truly threatening opponents every season, so they're going to win most of the time. They set their schedule up that way. All the more reason why thinking we can hand select 2 of them for a "championship" game is ridiculous, and a playoff should be in order ASAP.
 
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
Zurp;2120076; said:
The headline writer is much less biased than the writer of the article. You'd think the BCS system kicked him in the crotch twice a week since he was 12 years old.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it feels like. The BCS is a sham. It's about time we moved away from this stupid thing.
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2120602; said:
That's exactly what it feels like. The BCS is a sham. It's about time we moved away from this stupid thing.
Click to expand...
How is it a sham?

Can you name one BCS era champion who is "undeserving" of the title? Bear in mind, my question to you is NOT can you think of any other team which may have been "deserving" of a shot. My question is specific to the issue of whether the BCS is a sham, not whether it's palatable to people.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;2120608; said:
How is it a sham?

Can you name one BCS era champion who is "undeserving" of the title? Bear in mind, my question to you is NOT can you think of any other team which may have been "deserving" of a shot. My question is specific to the issue of whether the BCS is a sham, not whether it's palatable to people.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean? How relevant is the question when you exclude the primary argument against the BCS, which is that deserving teams have zero chance of even playing for the title?
 
Upvote 0
knapplc;2120614; said:
What does that even mean? How relevant is the question when you exclude the primary argument against the BCS, which is that deserving teams have zero chance of even playing for the title?
Click to expand...

Exactly how do you quantify the statement "deserving teams have zero chance of playing for the title"? Your conception of "deserving" sounds at least as subjective as my own IMO that every BCS champion so far has "deserved" their awarded title.
 
Upvote 0
BayBuck;2120619; said:
Exactly how do you quantify the statement "deserving teams have zero chance of playing for the title"? Your conception of "deserving" sounds at least as subjective as my own IMO that every BCS champion so far has "deserved" their awarded title.
Click to expand...

It's as quantifiable as creating a "deserving" March Madness bracket. Where is the hue and cry that the NCAA tourney winner isn't the college basketball champion?
 
Upvote 0
Knap - you called it a sham. If it's a sham, you should be able to identify what Champion didn't deserve the championship.

A sham would no doubt produce ridiculous results... like.. I don't know... Villanova beating Georgetown... and winning the title, despite losing the other 3 games they played against Georgetown that year...

Just sayin

I mean... It's not like the wildcard Giants beating the 18-0 pats... Totally legit.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top