• 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
Sort by date Sort by votes
MililaniBuckeye;961412; said:
So, if there are no undefeated teams at the end of the regular season, the whole season has been totally meaningless? Dude, you've said a lot of bong-induced stupid shit before, but this ranked right up there...
Click to expand...

I think Zurp meant that the more teams that are included in a 'playoff' (and considering the current system to be a 2-team playoff), the less meaningful regular season games become. That makes sense to me.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;961469; said:
I think Zurp meant that the more teams that are included in a 'playoff' (and considering the current system to be a 2-team playoff), the less meaningful regular season games become. That makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

That's how I took his comments as well.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961433; said:
Totally disagree with yourt disaggrement with Zurp, with a playoff, all of the recent losses don't mean as much b/c the teams know they're pretty much guaranteed a shot in a playoff at the end of the season.
Click to expand...

It's all about position seeding. Also, the way the polls work, it's the timing of your loss as much as, if not more than, who you lose to. Playoffs allow a worthy team to lose later in the season and still have a chance.

The playoffs have worked fine for I-AA, II, III, and NAIA teams for decades...no reason why it can't work for I-A.
 
Upvote 0
methomps;961463; said:
I think that point works both ways. If you only take two teams, you increase the chance that the best team is left on the outside (especially if there are several undefeated teams.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I guess an argument would be made for USC in 2003, Auburn in 2004, or Boise State in 2006. But I guess that the way to overcome that is to come up with a betterer "system" so that the best team is not left on the outside. Personally, I don't believe that a playoff is the better system.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961497; said:
You and I have discussed this a million times, there is a reason it can't work, those divisions didn't have an existing bowl system to incorporate.
Click to expand...

So, an over-bloated, archaic bowl system is a valid reason for not join the rest of the college sports world in incorporating a playoff system. Good justification. Now go clean your chalk board erasers...
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;961493; said:
It's all about position seeding. Also, the way the polls work, it's the timing of your loss as much as, if not more than, who you lose to. Playoffs allow a worthy team to lose later in the season and still have a chance.
Click to expand...

I actually like this point when it comes to this argument. In 1998, Ohio State lost later in the season than Florida State did. Therefore, Ohio State didn't go to the national championship game.

Another good argument is that some of the games would be played in Big Ten stadiums, if higher-seeded teams are the home teams.
 
Upvote 0
Coincidentally, I've been in a lengthy email debate about this with two of my buddies - one who is a huge VT fan and the other is the biggest Tenny fan in the word. We have this debate about this same time every season, and usually agree to disagree.

One thing that came up today was perhaps another realignment of the teams. The non-BCS teams almost never have a chance (and would never have a chance if gimmicky spread offenses hadn't spread like wildfire IMHO). We didn't agree in whether or not it should be done, but it would be interesting to me to hear others' thoughts of perhaps whittling the 117 teams down to 2 half-sized divisions with playoffs. I know this is definitely not likely, but an interesting point nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0
methomps;961530; said:
You don't need to have fans travel to multiple games if you play the games at the higher seed's place. This is true with a 4, 6, 8, or 16-team playoff structure (I advocate 6 teams).
Click to expand...

But what about the Cotton Bowl not wanting their game being played anywhere but the Cotton Bowl?
 
Upvote 0
[quote='BusNative;96152;5]We didn't agree in whether or not it should be done, but it would be interesting to me to hear others' thoughts of perhaps whittling the 117 teams down to 2 half-sized divisions with playoffs. I know this is definitely not likely, but an interesting point nonetheless.[/quote]

That seems less likely than a playoff system coming up anytime soon. The SEC would be pissed. The Big Ten wouldn't want to be split up. Probably the Pac10. The conferences would likely try to stick together. After that, what's the point of the two divisions?

If a play-off were to happen, I think that they'd want to take the winners of the 11 conferences, and 5 at-large teams. Divisions aren't necessary. Interesting idea, though.
 
Upvote 0
Thump;961535; said:
But what about the Cotton Bowl not wanting their game being played anywhere but the Cotton Bowl?
Click to expand...

Why would the Cotton Bowl be played elsewhere? You don't have to name the individual playoff games after bowl games. You have the playoffs as a separate system from the bowls. Bowl-eligible teams that aren't selected for the playoffs still go to a bowl game.

If you host the semifinals and championship games at neutral sites (which I advocate), then you can do those at the BCS Bowl sites (Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar). The first round playoffs games are not bowl games.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top