College Playoff

[OH10]

you can't do it based on rankings, because the rankings have inherent bias..

I'm confused. Isn't that what playoff proponents have been saying? Seriously, where do you stand again?

 

[lvbuckeye]

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.

to go a little further along the sample size angle, i'm not talking about winning your conference, i'm talking about INTER-conference play.

if you want to REALISTICALLY set it up so you can run a tournament, and keep the TV revenue intact, you would need basically 8 eight-team conferences, with everyone playing everyone, and 5 OOC games every year. THAT would give you a large enough inter-conference games to accurately determine who is really the best.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I'm confused. Isn't that what playoff proponents have been saying? Seriously, where do you stand again?

keep it the way it is. the logisitics involved going to a playoff system are damn near impossible to achieve. not to mention the fact that the winner of the Sun Belt would be in the tourney, while a team like Georgia, whom we all KNOW is better would be left out. what's the lowest seeded team that ever won the NCAA basketball tourney? 8. Villanova 1985, in one of the greatest upsets ever. after that, there has been one 6-seed, and a hand-full of 5-seeds. the vast majority of NCAA hoops champs are 4-seeds or better.

 

[methomps]

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.

I assume the 30+ games you are referring to the other bowl games? I see no reason why we have to completely scrap the bowl system to move to a playoff. The teams that don't qualify for the playoff can still go to bowl games.

 

[lvbuckeye]

I assume the 30+ games you are referring to the other bowl games? I see no reason why we have to completely scrap the bowl system to move to a playoff. The teams that don't qualify for the playoff can still go to bowl games.

1) who would watch?
2) who would sponsor them?

how do the NIT ratings compare to the NCAA tourney? once again, the comparison of basketball to football is apples/oranges. there is not enough inter-conference play in football to determine who is the best. in fact, it really doesn't exist in hoops, either. the closest thing is the Big Ten-ACC challenge, and that only determines who's better between two conferences. but even then, what does that prove? the ACC has never lost the challenge, but there have been 4 Final Fours in the last 10 years that had 2 Big Ten Teams represented. does that mean that even though the ACC won the Challenge, the Big Ten was really the better conference?

 

[schwab]

1) who would watch?
2) who would sponsor them?

1) Who watches now?
2) Who sponsors them now?

Why would you have to change any part of that? More games = More $$.

Right now, everyone is in a lose-lose situation, yet half of us (not me) are sitting here with a smile on our face!?!? Weird....

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

1) who would watch?
2) who would sponsor them?

Who watches them now? Seriously. The Meinke Car Care Bowl? The Depends Bowl (sponsored by Best Buckeye)? No one gives a fuck about the bowls being played during the first 3 1/2 weeks of December (except the multitude of unranked mediocre teams playing in them).

Tell me which would draw a bigger viewing audience and hence more sponsorship:

1. Poinsettia Bowl (Mountain West vs. Navy/At-Large)
2. BCS First Round Game (#1 vs #16, #8 vs #9, etc.)

Gee, I'm thinking maybe choice #2?

 

[methomps]

1) who would watch?
2) who would sponsor them?

The same people that watch and sponsor them now.

how do the NIT ratings compare to the NCAA tourney? once again, the comparison of basketball to football is apples/oranges. there is not enough inter-conference play in football to determine who is the best. in fact, it really doesn't exist in hoops, either. the closest thing is the Big Ten-ACC challenge, and that only determines who's better between two conferences. but even then, what does that prove? the ACC has never lost the challenge, but there have been 4 Final Fours in the last 10 years that had 2 Big Ten Teams represented. does that mean that even though the ACC won the Challenge, the Big Ten was really the better conference?

And as I said in my last post:

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?

 

[MrsB]

There won't be any playoffs for a long long time, the entire system would have to be changed, and the schools wouldn't allow it.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

There won't be any playoffs for a long long time, the entire system would have to be changed, and the schools wouldn't allow it.

It's not the schools who oppose it...it's the old-school in charge of bowls.

 

[MrsB]

It's not the schools who oppose it...it's the old-school in charge of bowls.

I respectfully disagree. If the presidents wanted a playoff they would have it but You are half right, it is to prop up the bowls

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I respectfully disagree. If the presidents wanted a playoff they would have it but You are half right, it is to prop up the bowls

There is a pretty big difference between "not wanting" and "opposing", and not merely symantics...

 

[Mike80]

1) who would watch?
2) who would sponsor them?

Who watches the NFL playoffs?

Who sponsors what is there now???

 

[CookyPuss]

To playoff or not to playoff, that is the question...

I've been in favor of a playoff for quite some time and every year watching the BcS play out, I become even more strongly in favor.

Opponents of a playoff claim that regular season games would become somehow "meaningless." Could they lose some magnitude? Sure, but meaningless, certainly not. There are still only 12 games a year, so that makes them pretty damned important and much more important than any single season basketball game.

How would non-conference scheduling be impacted? Difficult to say, but I tend to lean toward the side that says it would get better as teams wouldn't have to worry about killing their NC hopes in September. It all depends on the system. Hell, with the current system you never know if it is going to help or hurt from year to year. This was a perfect year to schedule 4 patsies and have a better shot at running the table. Other years, it helps to have that extra "big win."

I tend toward something like a 12 team system that includes byes for the top 4 seeds. Keeps importance on finishing high and big non-conference wins could help push a team over the top.

One thing I'm sure of, is that it makes many more regular season games interesting to me. Most years, there are only a handful of games that impact whether or not tOSU makes it to the MNC game or not and in down years I could really give a rats ass who is winning the Big East and if The Big 12 champ is really more deserving than the SEC champ. However, with playoff implications and a multitude of possibilities, I'm betting my interest grows rather than focusing on a couple of games as the season wanes.

As for the playoffs themselves, Mili nailed it. I'd be glued to the screen watching those match ups when in most years, I could give a shit about half of the BCS bowls let alone who is playing in the Papa John's "Eat Our Shitty Pizza" Bowl.

Personally, the magic of the bowl system died with the BcS. It used to mean everything to win the Big 10 and go to the Rose Bowl. NCs were something for the pollsters and nice but not that ultimate goal. Beating Michigan and getting to Pasadena was everything. Last year you actually had the loser of The Game getting that bid. What a joke.

In the end, I say do it and do it right and a playoff will be the greatest spectacle in all of sport. Do it wrong and well, it can't be much worse than what we have. At least you don't have to root for other teams to lose for your team to make it. You have to win your way in.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Who watches them now? Seriously. The Meinke Car Care Bowl? The Depends Bowl (sponsored by Best Buckeye)? No one gives a fuck about the bowls being played during the first 3 1/2 weeks of December (except the multitude of unranked mediocre teams playing in them).

Tell me which would draw a bigger viewing audience and hence more sponsorship:

1. Poinsettia Bowl (Mountain West vs. Navy/At-Large)
2. BCS First Round Game (#1 vs #16, #8 vs #9, etc.)

Gee, I'm thinking maybe choice #2?

Not a valid comparison. If the crappy third-tier bowls get to stick around even in a playoff system, the Poinsettia Bowl will still be the Poinsettia Bowl featuring Navy and New Mexico. If we're talking a 16-game playoff, the first-round equivalent is more like the Gator Bowl. A playoff game wouldn't have any of the pomp and circumstance that surrounds every bowl game and rakes in the cash besides. Nobody sponsors it when some 16 seed from the MEAC gets stomped by UNC in March, nor even do they sponsor the Sweet Sixteen, why would anyone sponsor an uninteresting first-round football matchup?