College Playoff

[lvbuckeye]

If you go with 16 teams, then they are both in. If you go with 8 teams, then neither are. So I fail to see the problem, unless being undefeated is the end all, in which case the BYUs of the world will have another shot at a title like 1984.

You do not need all the conference champs. If they go OOC and knock off some big boys, then they will have a higher BCS ranking. If they play nobody, then they will be left behind. Up to them and their ADs how to approach it.

my problem is with a team being crowned the NATIONAL Champs who weren't even the champs of their own conference. how can that be possible?

 

[Gatorubet]

my problem is with a team being crowned the NATIONAL Champs who weren't even the champs of their own conference. how can that be possible?

Fuck that March Madness thinking.....

 

[methomps]

my problem is with a team being crowned the NATIONAL Champs who weren't even the champs of their own conference. how can that be possible?

Its a measure of different things. Conference champ measures the 8 or 9 conferences games. National champ measures the whole season.

 

[Oh8ch]

Fuck that March Madness thinking....

You want to argue March Madness is a lot of fun I am with you.

You want to argue it crowns the best team in College Basketball - dream on.

 

[Gatorubet]

You want to argue March Madness is a lot of fun I am with you.

You want to argue it crowns the best team in College Basketball - dream on.

I'm just saying that it crowns the Champion...which is sorta my only point. It seems to work in hoops, despite the same, very real possibility of a non-conference champion being the universally acknowleged National Champion.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Its a measure of different things. Conference champ measures the 8 or 9 conferences games. National champ measures the whole season.

and if you don't measure up in your own conference, why should you even be considered to be in the running to be the best in the entire country.

 

[methomps]

and if you don't measure up in your own conference, why should you even be considered to be in the running to be the best in the entire country.

Because you measure up better than anyone else over the course of the entire season.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Because you measure up better than anyone else over the course of the entire season.

how can you possibly say that you measure up better than anyone else (in the entire country) over the course of the entire season when you didn't measure up better than someone else in your own conference? think about it.

since we're dealing with a hypothetical playoff, i say only conference champs should be represented. if you can't win your conference, (regional championships, in all actuality) then you are out of the running in the national race.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

and if you don't measure up in your own conference, why should you even be considered to be in the running to be the best in the entire country.

Shit happens during conference play, especially during rivlary games or when a team has (a) key player(s) hurt for a few games. Like I've said before, I've never heard anyone complain about YSU's national title the year they finished third in their conference...

 

[lvbuckeye]

when have you ever heard anyone complain about anything that happens in 1AA? there isn't the exposure that the big time gets...

 

[Jaxbuck]

Shit happens during conference play, especially during rivlary games or when a team has (a) key player(s) hurt for a few games. Like I've said before, I've never heard anyone complain about YSU's national title the year they finished third in their conference...

or anyone say a Super Bowl champ wasn't legit if they were the Wild Card team.


The underlying issue to me is that a playoff still has its limitations and anyone who wants to argue what it proves will still do so.

1) Playoffs determine who played well enough all year to get in and then played the best at the end.

2) The current system attemps to determine who had the best body of work for the entire season.

Those are the only two ways to do it and both have their pluses and minuses, people are going to argue about college football forever no matter what.

I personally think that even though its harder to prove, the attempt should be made to crown a NC based on the team who had the "best" year.

 

[methomps]

or anyone say a Super Bowl champ wasn't legit if they were the Wild Card team.


The underlying issue to me is that a playoff still has its limitations and anyone who wants to argue what it proves will still do so.

1) Playoffs determine who played well enough all year to get in and then played the best at the end.

2) The current system attemps to determine who had the best body of work for the entire season.

Those are the only two ways to do it and both have their pluses and minuses, people are going to argue about college football forever no matter what.

I personally think that even though its harder to prove, the attempt should be made to crown a NC based on the team who had the "best" year.

I don't see any difference beween the BCS and a playoff as far as your distinction. Does the BCS rerun the computers after he NC game to see if the results of that game (and the other games) changes who is #1 and #2? No. It is "who played well enough all year to get in and then played the best at the end."

how can you possibly say that you measure up better than anyone else (in the entire country) over the course of the entire season when you didn't measure up better than someone else in your own conference? think about it.

since we're dealing with a hypothetical playoff, i say only conference champs should be represented. if you can't win your conference, (regional championships, in all actuality) then you are out of the running in the national race.

Lots of ways, actually. For one, look a situation like 2002. Iowa and Ohio State. Should one team be ineligible from the NC game because of a tiebreaker even though neither lost a conference game? What if the team that won the tiebreaker lost an OOC game, while the other team went undefeated?

Or what about a situation where there are three teams that are obviously a class above everyone else in the country. Team A is a Pac-10 team that finished with one loss and won the conference. Team B is a Big Ten team that finished with one loss in conference and was runner-up. Team C is a Big East team that finished with two losses, one to Team A and the other to Team B, but won the Big East.

Are you telling me that Team A and Team C must be the teams (again, assuming that the entire country agrees that no other team outside of these three is close to worthy)? Change it up even. What if Team C's losses are to Team B and a conferece foe, but the Big East was a slogfest where Team C still won the conference. Look at what you are doing there. Both Team B and Team C lost a conference game, so your rule would punish the team that is probably from the better conference.

In fact, if you think about it, your rule would routinely punish teams from the best conferences. Conference races can be messy. They can come down to odd tiebreakers like who had the best record against the #6 team in the conference. And, again, they don't consider OOC games.

 

[sandgk]

Shit happens during conference play, especially during rivlary games or when a team has (a) key player(s) hurt for a few games. Like I've said before, I've never heard anyone complain about YSU's national title the year they finished third in their conference...

Well, we might (long shot - but not outside the realms of possibility) be about to see the closest you can get to that this year within the BCS.

If West Va. loses, Oklahoma wins and the Vols get over on an LSU team that may have it's focus on who is coaching them next year, then you may see Ohio State play Georgia in the BCS NC game.

Despite winning neither division of the SEC, thus not making it to the SEC title game, which would make them 3rd in that conference.

At which point the Buckeyes whoop up on the Dawgs :)

 

[Lockup]

how can you possibly say that you measure up better than anyone else (in the entire country) over the course of the entire season when you didn't measure up better than someone else in your own conference? think about it.

since we're dealing with a hypothetical playoff, i say only conference champs should be represented. if you can't win your conference, (regional championships, in all actuality) then you are out of the running in the national race.

NFL, NBA, MLB, College BBall and pretty much any other sport you can think of does not require you to win your conference to win the final champonship. Why should CFB be any different.

It would be nice if that was the case but how do you tell a team in an 8 team playoff or so that only loses 1 game and that 1 game cost them the conference crown that they do not deserve to play for the NC if they are ranked high enough?

Howver I will say in the current system where only two teams get a shot, yes you should have to be a conference champion.

 

[kartaron]

when have you ever heard anyone complain about anything that happens in 1AA? there isn't the exposure that the big time gets...

1AA playoffs are screwed up. They take too few from small conferences and indies. To solve this they are heading toward a 24 team bracket.

I-A holds as I-AA looks at 24-team football playoff - USATODAY.com

sorry about scUM commentaries in the link by the way.

Thats the kind of thing that would happen in a D1 playoff system. Not the best team, but the team that can survive the endless rounds.