College Playoff

[Zurp]

I like to believe that the "best team" is also the "champions." Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way in some situations. A couple of years ago, the St Louis Cardinals won the World Series. Their regular season was just over .500. Sure, it's great for a Cardinals fan, but does that show any greatness in the playoff system of baseball? And in the '80's, I believe, someone won the NCAA basketball tournament as an 8-seed. (I want to say Georgetown, but that doesn't sound right. I'll probably remember just after I click "submit.") It's nice for the "Cinderella Team" story, but I don't think it's good for college basketball. What's the point of watching the regular season, anymore?

A playoff in the 2006 season - you know what that does? It greatly reduces the impact of The Game. "Who won? Who cares? They're both in the playoffs." (To Ohio State and Michigan fans, The Game will always be big. But that game was big on a national scale.)

And my viewpoint is the same, regardless of whether it helps Ohio State (2002 and 2006) or keeps them out (2003, 2005, and maybe 2007).

 

[Gatorubet]

I like to believe that the "best team" is also the "champions." Unfortunately, it doesn't always work out that way in some situations. A couple of years ago, the St Louis Cardinals won the World Series. Their regular season was just over .500. Sure, it's great for a Cardinals fan, but does that show any greatness in the playoff system of baseball? And in the '80's, I believe, someone won the NCAA basketball tournament as an 8-seed. (I want to say Georgetown, but that doesn't sound right. I'll probably remember just after I click "submit.") It's nice for the "Cinderella Team" story, but I don't think it's good for college basketball. What's the point of watching the regular season, anymore?

A playoff in the 2006 season - you know what that does? It greatly reduces the impact of The Game. "Who won? Who cares? They're both in the playoffs." (To Ohio State and Michigan fans, The Game will always be big. But that game was big on a national scale.)

And my viewpoint is the same, regardless of whether it helps Ohio State (2002 and 2006) or keeps them out (2003, 2005, and maybe 2007).

Taking off my orange and blue glasses, I think LSU was better than UF in January 07. But if you get in, you should not have to listen to other team's whining, because you did what you had to do to get in the BCS game.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

A playoff in the 2006 season - you know what that does? It greatly reduces the impact of The Game. "Who won? Who cares? They're both in the playoffs." (To Ohio State and Michigan fans, The Game will always be big. But that game was big on a national scale.)

No, it does not reduce the impact of The Game. We still get the #1 seed and home field advantage throughout the playoffs until the NC game. Michigan still gets in the playoffs as a #4 or #5 seed (or whatever rank they feel to after the loss). If we go to a playoff system and you individually no longer "care" for The Game, then turn in your Buckeye fan card right now...

 

[lvbuckeye]

Really? They have? Awesome. Who won when they played? West Virginia or Ohio State? Missouri or Georgia?

By the way, the NBA has decided to cancel the results of the last season and just have Detroit play Dallas in the NBA Finals.

WORST.
ARGUMENT.
EVER.

you see, in professional sports, you play enough games to get a fix on who the best teams are. there are only 16 games in the NFL, but you play HALF of your conference's teams (and those in your own division twice), and 1/4 of the other conference's teams. the sample size is large enough. in the NBA, MLB, and NHL, the play AT LEAST 82 games, which is, again, a very large sample size in determining the best teams. you only get 12 games to prove your self in college football, and that small sample in conjunction with 119 teams, does not give any indication as to who the playoff teams really are. it's still a beauty contest and still based largely on preseason rankings ans when you lose.

in order for a playoff system to REALLY work in college football, every non-BCS school should be eliminated from 1A football, and even then the sample size might be too small to accurately determine the worthy teams. there are still 67 BCS conference schools.

now that we've eliminated 52 D1A (er, FCS) schools, they would have to create a new 1B division, which would bump down every other subdivision.

such a drastic and major overhaul will never happen.

 

[Muck]

What's the point of watching the regular season, anymore?

Exactly.

Why even HAVE a regular season?

Just use the preseason polls to vote a NC champion on Sept 1st.

Actually playing it out on the field is a fools errand anyways.

Tthat will show those pesky "cinderella" stories!

 

[OHSportsFan]

No, it does not reduce the impact of The Game. We still get the #1 seed and home field advantage throughout the playoffs until the NC game. Michigan still gets in the playoffs as a #4 or #5 seed (or whatever rank they feel to after the loss). If we go to a playoff system and you individually no longer "care" for The Game, then turn in your Buckeye fan card right now...

part of beating Michigan in THE GAME is the fact that it will end ANY hope of Michigan getting to a national championship (and I'm sure the same is thought of on Michigan's side).

doesn't mean a Buckeye fan should turn in his card just because they feel the game will mean less...because it will. Also, what happens when OSU beats michigan, and then just a few weeks later loses to them in the final game?

 

[Zurp]

then turn in your Buckeye fan card right now...

You got a fan card? Cool!

 

[lvbuckeye]

I guess we'll just disagree on that point then. If I'm a coach and I know I can make the playoff in 1 of 2 ways (winning my conference or being the highest rated non-conference winner) I'm sure as hell scheduling a tough OOC schedule.

Also, if the BCS formula stays in place, you'd want difficult OOC games.

What does it hurt to play those games? If you win you're helping your cause in the event of a slip-up in conference, and if you lose you've still got conference play.

If you schedule patsies, the team that didn't who has the same record, will make it in front of you.

I just don't see your argument really. It's in no way advantageous to schedule patsies.

yes there is. because wins trump losses.

 

[kn1f3party]

I don't see how winning the Big Ten and beating your rival is invalidated by a playoff. Beating TSUN will always provide me with satisfaction, even if we're 1-11. I don't give a damn about them on any day except the third Saturday in November.

I've heard this argument over and over, I just don't see how it would invalidate THE GAME. The Big Ten title would still be on the line and it would be incredibly rare that both teams made the playoffs due to the likely small size of said playoffs. If that was such a major concern it could easily be handled by forcing FBS schools to be absorbed by a conference and then you just throw all of the champs in to a playoff. We're not thinking outside of the box here, we're just trying to associate it to NCAA BB and NFL--college football is neither.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

WORST.
ARGUMENT.
EVER.

you see, in professional sports, you play enough games to get a fix on who the best teams are. there are only 16 games in the NFL, but you play HALF of your conference's teams (and those in your own division twice), and 1/4 of the other conference's teams. the sample size is large enough. in the NBA, MLB, and NHL, the play AT LEAST 82 games, which is, again, a very large sample size in determining the best teams. you only get 12 games to prove your self in college football, and that small sample in conjunction with 119 teams, does not give any indication as to who the playoff teams really are. it's still a beauty contest and still based largely on preseason rankings ans when you lose.

in order for a playoff system to REALLY work in college football, every non-BCS school should be eliminated from 1A football, and even then the sample size might be too small to accurately determine the worthy teams. there are still 67 BCS conference schools.

now that we've eliminated 52 D1A (er, FCS) schools, they would have to create a new 1B division, which would bump down every other subdivision.

such a drastic and major overhaul will never happen.

Actually, yours is now:
WORST.
ARGUMENT.
EVER.

Playoffs work for I-AA, II, and III divisions, and have so for decades. I-AA is set up almost exactly like I-A in structure (I-AA has 117 teams in 15 conferences with 3 independents, and I-A has 119 teams in 11 conferences with 3 independents). I-A could easily mirror I-AA's 16-team playoff format. And why would you eliminate "non-BCS" schools from consideration? Oh yeah, the WAC, MWC, etc., never have any decent teams...I bet that Oklahoma would beg to differ. Simply put, you pick the top 16 teams in the final BCS rankings. Fuck mandatory conference affiliations. If a conference or two gets three or four teams each in the top 16, so be it. And no "Notre Dame" rules, either.

 

[kn1f3party]

Mili,

You're speaking French to people who know those divisions exist, but haven't the slightest clue as to how they operate.

 

[methomps]

part of beating Michigan in THE GAME is the fact that it will end ANY hope of Michigan getting to a national championship (and I'm sure the same is thought of on Michigan's side).

doesn't mean a Buckeye fan should turn in his card just because they feel the game will mean less...because it will. Also, what happens when OSU beats michigan, and then just a few weeks later loses to them in the final game?

This argument cuts both ways depending on the situation. If Michigan is top 5 going into the game, then, yes, beating them eliminates them under a BCS regime. But if Michigan is 10 or 11 in a playoff regime, then beating them in that scenario has the added bonus of eliminating them from NC hopes (whereas in a BCS regime they are already out.

WORST.
ARGUMENT.
EVER.

you see, in professional sports, you play enough games to get a fix on who the best teams are. there are only 16 games in the NFL, but you play HALF of your conference's teams (and those in your own division twice), and 1/4 of the other conference's teams. the sample size is large enough. in the NBA, MLB, and NHL, the play AT LEAST 82 games, which is, again, a very large sample size in determining the best teams. you only get 12 games to prove your self in college football, and that small sample in conjunction with 119 teams, does not give any indication as to who the playoff teams really are. it's still a beauty contest and still based largely on preseason rankings ans when you lose.

in order for a playoff system to REALLY work in college football, every non-BCS school should be eliminated from 1A football, and even then the sample size might be too small to accurately determine the worthy teams. there are still 67 BCS conference schools.

now that we've eliminated 52 D1A (er, FCS) schools, they would have to create a new 1B division, which would bump down every other subdivision.

such a drastic and major overhaul will never happen.

I see this argument as cutting in favor of a playoff. It seems to me that NBA and MLB regular seasons would be more conducive to a BCS regime since, as you say, they "play enough games to get a fix on who the best teams are."

With cfb, there are fewer games and, as you say, less opportunity to get a solid read on who the best teams are. Wouldn't it then make sense to use a system that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance instead of hoping we can pick the two best teams?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Mili,

You're speaking French to people who know those divisions exist, but haven't the slightest clue as to how they operate.

I-A: 85 scholarship limit
I-AA: 63 scholarship limit
II: 36 scholarship limit
III: No scholarships are given

 

[OH10]

I see this argument as cutting in favor of a playoff. It seems to me that NBA and MLB regular seasons would be more conducive to a BCS regime since, as you say, they "play enough games to get a fix on who the best teams are."

With cfb, there are fewer games and, as you say, less opportunity to get a solid read on who the best teams are. Wouldn't it then make sense to use a system that gives 6 or 8 teams a chance instead of hoping we can pick the two best teams?

Well said. I see the idiot response from lvbuckeye, and you said what I would have said better than I could have said it... if that makes sense.



The argument in favor of the BCS has become baffling to me. How do you possibly determine the best team in the country with so many teams when they never have to play each other? I must say it again and this is most certainly without scarlet-colored glasses: Who have West Virginia or Ohio State played? I mean, that's why we keep Hawaii out, because they haven't played anybody. So why doesn't that impact OSU or WVU? If you're a BCS conference school, aren't you better off not playing anybody? And if you have a system that encourages schools to schedule like pussies, how is that a good thing?

 

[lvbuckeye]

Actually, yours is now:
WORST.
ARGUMENT.
EVER.

Playoffs work for I-AA, II, and III divisions, and have so for decades. I-AA is set up almost exactly like I-A in structure (I-AA has 117 teams in 15 conferences with 3 independents, and I-A has 119 teams in 11 conferences with 3 independents). I-A could easily mirror I-AA's 16-team playoff format. And why would you eliminate "non-BCS" schools from consideration? Oh yeah, the WAC, MWC, etc., never have any decent teams...I bet that Oklahoma would beg to differ. Simply put, you pick the top 16 teams in the final BCS rankings. Fuck mandatory conference affiliations. If a conference or two gets three or four teams each in the top 16, so be it. And no "Notre Dame" rules, either.

blah blah blah. i never said that the lower tier conferences never have any decent teams (Appalachian State ring any bells?) no ND rule? i was talking about sample sizes. there aren't any Big Ten teams ranked because no one thinks the Big Ten is any good. the SEC has a shit ton of teams ranked because everyone thinks they're great. i'll repeat it one more time: THE SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL. you can't do it based on rankings, because the rankings have inherent bias. you have to do it based on winning your conference, and everyone knows that the MAC winner, more often than not, wouldn't stand a chance in the SEC, Big Ten, Pac Ten, etc., which is why you'd need to split 1A into two divisions... BTW, Utah doesn't make the BCS without the ND rule. Boise St doesn't make the BCS without the ND rule. try again.

and you are overlooking the FACT that a 16 team playoff leads to exactly 15 extra games. try doing the math and figuring how much revenue will be lost to the the networks and the rest of corporate America by eliminating 30+ football games every year. playoff work in the lower divisions because they aren't hindered by television.

try going back and actually reading what i wrote.