I would too... I'm simply saying controversy is GOOD for the popularity of the sport.knapplc;2150869; said:
Upvote
0
-
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
lvbuckeye
Silver Surfer
it ain't about controversy, it's about money, and anyone with at least a passing knowledge of the Fiesta Bowl Junker scandal should know why the BCS is BAD ($33,000 for a birthday party at Pebble Beach!!?!?) and why a playoff (with higher ranked teams hosting) is GOOD. we already have the first round of the playoffs with the conference championship games. now give me those 6 conference champions and 2 at large teams, and draw up the brackets.
it ain't rocket science. the only thing holding it back isn't logistics, it's corruption and graft, and the cartel currently running the show.
it ain't rocket science. the only thing holding it back isn't logistics, it's corruption and graft, and the cartel currently running the show.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
In my opinion, controversy is inevitable in college football national championship determination, no matter the scheme. Because the ratio of participants to games played is uniquely high. There's mathematically no great way to determine a champion out of 120 teams in 13-15 games, even if only ten of those games are devoted to "the regular season". Even if you restrict "championship eligible participants" to BCS conference teams, it's damn tough to figure out a champion from among 50 or 60 participants in 15 games with a large fraction of those games being "the regular season". The only way to make it mathematically viable is to strip away a large chunk of the regular season and replace it with a single-elimination tournament. Which, if you don't care much for the regular season, and if you feel, say, that UConn was a more deserving NCAA men's basketball champion in '11 than OSU was, may suit you.Buckeyeskickbuttocks;2150873; said:
But pro sports that have a far lower participants-to-games-played ratio (like MLB, NHL, NBA) aren't really comparable. Even the NFL has a substantially lower PtGP ratio. They could very well have a relatively non-controversial championship decided by a single contest between two participants, who were selected entirely on regular season performance. And they used to. They moved to a playoff with four levels of wild-card because it was lucrative to do so. No other reason, in my speculation.
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;2150850; said:
Yeah, implementing a playoff system would just kill the popularity of college football...I mean, why would anyone want to watch the top 16 teams in the country slug it out for the national title. Everyone would prefer watching Puxantuany Central Tech play Pig Valley A&M in the Anal Lube Bowl...
Upvote
0
Gatorubet
Loathing All Things Georgia
And making teams have a 16 game college season that lasts until until the Super Bowl. That would be cool too.MililaniBuckeye;2150993; said:Yeah, implementing a playoff system would just kill the popularity of college football...I mean, why would anyone want to watch the top 16 teams in the country slug it out for the national title. Everyone would prefer watching Puxantuany Central Tech play Pig Valley A&M in the Anal Lube Bowl...
Upvote
0
Uh, not if you start the playoffs in mid-December.Gatorubet;2150994; said:
What he said...knapplc;2151004; said:
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
Mili, you've frequently cited the D1-AA playoff as an example of how D1-A should do things. Which is a legitimate view. I would submit, however, that there's a substantial difference between the two. Relatively speaking, nobody ever cared about the D1-AA regular season, or eventual "champion", in the first place. It makes sense in that situation to try to focus all of your interest on a tournament. D1-A, I think, is in a different situation.MililaniBuckeye;2151008; said:
Upvote
0
Strawmen are fun, especially when they hide the issue, the regular season popularity. The popular games will be popular no matter what format is used: playoffs, rivalry games, many CCGs, etc.MililaniBuckeye;2150993; said:Yeah, implementing a playoff system would just kill the popularity of college football...I mean, why would anyone want to watch the top 16 teams in the country slug it out for the national title. Everyone would prefer watching Puxantuany Central Tech play Pig Valley A&M in the Anal Lube Bowl...
The average games are at risk. When Ohio State is losing to Ohio, or Southern Cal to Stanford, that is riveting TV if it is costing them a title shot. When it's just a learning experience, those games become a lot less important and suspenseful.
16 teams erases the need for greatness. While the standard of that is controversial now, or in a 4 team playoff, it is still there and makes every game a potential do or die situation. Sure, it's balanced, but its requirement is merely being "decent." I don't want "decent" title runs, I want clashes of the titans. I'd much rather exclude a titan here or there then let in an avalanche of mediocrity in the name of balance & fairness.
Upvote
0
knapplc
Nebraska is a Volleyball school
If the regular season of CFB is so sacrosanct, then eliminate the bowls entirely. Get rid of the Sagarins of the world, all the computers, and just have the sportswriters crown one champion at the end of the regular season and the Coaches crown another.
This "sanctity of the regular season" card is waaaay overplayed. You're talking two, maybe three games each year where there's a real chance of losing for a true contender. Otherwise you're playing a bunch of creampuffs whom you should trounce.
Where's the drama in playing UCF? Where's the drama in playing Indiana? In isolated years, sure, they'll give you a game. 99% of the time these are cake-walks. You play Michigan every year and usually that's a hell of a game. You play Penn State every year and that's reasonably good. The rest of your schedule is a chance to get your freshmen in games, or it should be.
What purpose do the vast majority of the bowls serve? It cannot be for entertainment, because the regular season is the most entertaining thing ever. Any bowl game - especially with this ridiculous proliferation of bowls we have now - takes away from the regular season unless you're playing in the BCS Championship game. If you're not, every other bowl is just window-dressing, utterly meaningless.
You cannot argue the sanctity of the regular season and support bowl games. It does not jive.
This "sanctity of the regular season" card is waaaay overplayed. You're talking two, maybe three games each year where there's a real chance of losing for a true contender. Otherwise you're playing a bunch of creampuffs whom you should trounce.
Where's the drama in playing UCF? Where's the drama in playing Indiana? In isolated years, sure, they'll give you a game. 99% of the time these are cake-walks. You play Michigan every year and usually that's a hell of a game. You play Penn State every year and that's reasonably good. The rest of your schedule is a chance to get your freshmen in games, or it should be.
What purpose do the vast majority of the bowls serve? It cannot be for entertainment, because the regular season is the most entertaining thing ever. Any bowl game - especially with this ridiculous proliferation of bowls we have now - takes away from the regular season unless you're playing in the BCS Championship game. If you're not, every other bowl is just window-dressing, utterly meaningless.
You cannot argue the sanctity of the regular season and support bowl games. It does not jive.
Upvote
0
HorseshoeFetish
Silver Bullet Supporter
knapplc;2151021; said:
THIS 1000X THIS!!!!!!!!! Yet we let Nebraska in the conference anyway.:tongue2:
Upvote
0
zincfinger
Gert Frobe-approved
I disagree with you here. The meaningless bowls don't detract from the regular season precisely because they're meaningless. If Nebraska plays in the Meineke Car Care bowl, few care. They cared about the October games where Nebraska dropped out of national championship contention. Bowls are a bit of fun, but most of them are just scrimmages. Even the non-championship Rose Bowl is effectively a scrimmage. I like it, and I'll watch. But it was the regular season games that decided whether OSU was playing for a national title, and they had greater intensity because of it. Even if playing UCF. Or '02 Purdue or '02 Illinois.knapplc;2151021; said:
I agree with you that the play-the-regular-season-and-then-vote system is imperfect in crowning a national champion. Any remotely realistic system will be imperfect in that regard. Pros and cons is all I'm arguing.
Upvote
0
holy hyperbole.knapplc;2151021; said:
only 3 challenges ? Hardly
10 Auburn was in a dogfight in 7 of 12 reg season games.
09 Bama had 5 close ones in reg season.
Sometimes a title team bulldozes everyone but not very often
1) this is an unusually weak osu schedule. Usually osu plays a powerhouse team OOC and usually the big ten isn't a train wreck.
2) OSU often has their hands full with Purdue, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan and every so often they hold their breath in a stunner like Ohio. Illinois also plays osu surprisingly close every few years as well.
bowls do not hand out hardware anyone cares about. there is no downside to letting them win an exhibition trophy.
Zinc already covered this. Trivial bowls have very little impact on the regular season. Those teams that do care desperately about a 7-5 bowl berth do not interest most fans. The programs that do interest fans are forced to accept bowl bids as a parting gift for not making the title game. Even bcs games have lost their luster recently.
Last edited:
Upvote
0