College Playoff

[Bestbuck36]

You know, I never hear anyone say lets add one week to the beginning of the season and the secon week added at the end in order to make the playoff work. Why is that? Kids would still get to see their families for the holiday's and finals wouldnt be totally screwed. In an 8 team playoff these two weeks make up the time frame for games without going deep into December and January. Make sure all the conference championships are done by the week before Thanksgiving. The 8 teams selected for playoffs play Thanksgiving weekend, the four left play the next week leaving a championship game the first week of January. Why couldn't that be established? You take one extra week out of the summer and add one at the end not a big deal as far as I can tell. Summer vacations are ending early anyways for athletes and the coaches can get an extra week of hands on preparation before Labor Day or whenever school starts. How it would've looked this season for OSU is we play Youngstown on August 24 and the Michigan game would've been Nov 10 instead of the 17th. In cases where conferences need a conference champ, I say either play all of your teams in conference during that 12-13 week span and eliminate the CCG altogether or, eliminate one OOC game, preferably a DI-AA and play the CCG the week before Thanksgiving. Once the playoff fields are eliminated the bowl season could start and actually pick up teams that were in the playoff to play in their respective bowls. The bowls still get their games and all of the tie-ins should be generally intact such as they are now.

Short answer: It can be done and I would be in favor of it.

 

[kn1f3party]

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.

Everyone will have their own subjective opinion as to who they think the best team is. However, could you imagine the challenges in crowning #1 without a playoff in basketball?

I think football is subject to subjectiveness as well.

 

[Zurp]

In cases where conferences need a conference champ, I say either play all of your teams in conference during that 12-13 week span and eliminate the CCG altogether or, eliminate one OOC game, preferably a DI-AA and play the CCG the week before Thanksgiving. Once the playoff fields are eliminated the bowl season could start and actually pick up teams that were in the playoff to play in their respective bowls. The bowls still get their games and all of the tie-ins should be generally intact such as they are now.

Short answer: It can be done and I would be in favor of it.

First, I don't see teams eliminating an out-of-conference game. I seem to remember a time in the early '80's when the Big Ten (then 10 teams) tried to have its teams play everyone in the Big Ten. This eliminated 1 out-of-conference game. The teams didn't like it. The excuse I heard was that the teams wanted more chances to go play around the country to support alumni who lived in Texas, Washington, California, Massachussetts, etc. I don't know that there's any merit to this argument, since I haven't heard any complaints that Ohio State has been playing more and more out-of-conference games at home lately. Anyway, I doubt you'll see anyone eliminitate an out-of-conference game.

Second, I think that playing any games after a team has lost in the playoffs is a bad idea. The teams' intensity will be gone. I guess the NCAA basketball tournament used to have the losers of the semifinals play for #3 and #4. It was a boring game, because neither team cared to win. And the Holiday Bowl every year seems include a team who thinks they deserve a BCS Bowl. That team (whoever it is) tends to lose that game.

I agree that a playoffs CAN be done. And although I'm not in favor of the playoffs, I think that we'll see playoffs within 10 years or so.

 

[Oh8ch]

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.

And I am saying it crowns somebody that we call the champion and it only "seems to work in hoops" because we all drink the kool aid that tourney games are "magic" games that prove something other games don't prove.

However, could you imagine the challenges in crowning #1 without a playoff in basketball?

Exactly. It works because we all agree to accept the results, not because the results are accurate. If you put the worst 64 teams into the tournament and play the games you will still have one team go six and zero and can call them the champ.

I love March Madness and wouldn't change a thing. But college basketball almost completely discounts the regular season. That is the issue. You can't say that enough. The regular season in CFB means more than in any other major sport. Among MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, and college hoops NONE has a regular season that counts like CFB. Even NASCAR has purposefully rigged their rules so performance on the track throughout the year is discounted to promote late season interest in racing.

 

[Best Buckeye]

514 posts and no one yet has come up with a plausible way to get the powers that be to have a playoff, or the way to have one. This thread is a testimony to the fact that there isn't going to be any playoffs. :crazy:

 

[schwab]

But college basketball almost completely discounts the regular season. That is the issue. You can't say that enough.

I agree with this statement only if you are referring to conference tournaments. The regular season conference champion should be the one that gets the automatic bid into the tournament, not the one who plays best over the final 4-5 days as opposed to the first 16 conference games.

Other than that, the regular season establishes positioning and momentum which is then used to claim a national championship. If you blow through a weaker conference in BBall to get a high ranking and seed in the tournament, but then are not able to defeat the 'better' teams when you face them head to head, chances are you aren't the best team. I don't see how the regular season is thrown out with the bathwater.

 

[HailToMichigan]

I agree with this statement only if you are referring to conference tournaments. The regular season conference champion should be the one that gets the automatic bid into the tournament, not the one who plays best over the final 4-5 days as opposed to the first 16 conference games.

Other than that, the regular season establishes positioning and momentum which is then used to claim a national championship. If you blow through a weaker conference in BBall to get a high ranking and seed in the tournament, but then are not able to defeat the 'better' teams when you face them head to head, chances are you aren't the best team. I don't see how the regular season is thrown out with the bathwater.

Like I said earlier....if you lose one regular season football game, you are out of the picture unless someone else helps you. Lose two and you're done. Every single game matters 100%. Losing two football games is roughly the equivalent of losing 5 or 6 basketball games, and every team with that kind of record is not only in, but is a high seed. Lose twelve games, and you're still in. Going 22-12 in a basketball season is a near-guarantee of a tournament bid. That's like going 8-4 in football - a near-guarantee of going to the Sun Bowl.

Then look at how the tournament shakes out. Take the 2006 tournament. The #1 seeds were Duke (30-3, 14-2 ACC), Memphis (30-3, 13-1 CUSA), Villanova (25-4, 14-2 Big East), and UConn (27-3, 14-2 Big East). UConn or Duke probably were the best teams in the country over the year. Dominating the two toughest conferences proved that. Thanks to George Mason, who didn't even win their own mid-major conference (that would be UNC-Wilmington), UConn went nowhere. Duke fell to LSU, the SEC regular season champ. Neither Mason nor LSU had the "momentum" coming in, having lost in their respective tournaments, but somehow they managed to knock off the two best teams in the tourney anyway.

I can make it even simpler. If a tournament proves who the best team is, then why don't conference tournament champions always advance farther than at-large bids from the same conference? Maryland, UNC, and Syracuse are all examples of recent at-large champions - if a tournament or playoffs were truly the best way to "settle it on the field" (or court, in this case) then theoretically conference tournament winners should also always outperform at-large bids from their own conference in the Big Dance. Mid-major conferences are well aware that tournaments don't always produce true champions and they structure their conference tournaments accordingly. To ensure that they have the best chance of pulling off an upset in the Big Dance, they make sure they send their best team by giving them as many as three byes in the conference tournament. Instead of a traditional bracket, the #1 team might only have to win two games instead of four in order to win the tournament.

 

[schwab]

Then look at how the tournament shakes out. Take the 2006 tournament. The #1 seeds were Duke (30-3, 14-2 ACC), Memphis (30-3, 13-1 CUSA), Villanova (25-4, 14-2 Big East), and UConn (27-3, 14-2 Big East). UConn or Duke probably were the best teams in the country over the year. Dominating the two toughest conferences proved that. Thanks to George Mason, who didn't even win their own mid-major conference (that would be UNC-Wilmington), UConn went nowhere. Duke fell to LSU, the SEC regular season champ. Neither Mason nor LSU had the "momentum" coming in, having lost in their respective tournaments, but somehow they managed to knock off the two best teams in the tourney anyway.

At that point it was proven that UConn and Duke clearly were not the two best teams in the country. Whether it was George Mason and LSU, or any other two teams that they may have played, you can't argue they were the best teams. They put themselves in the best position, but that's all. Florida won it that year, and the next year also, proving (to me anyway) that they clearly were the best team. Being so loaded with sophomores during that first title run in '06, I would venture a guess that it took them a significant portion of their conference schedule to find their rhythm. They never lost it after that, until 2 years later they declare early for the NBA.

I can make it even simpler. If a tournament proves who the best team is, then why don't conference tournament champions always advance farther than at-large bids from the same conference? Maryland, UNC, and Syracuse are all examples of recent at-large champions - if a tournament or playoffs were truly the best way to "settle it on the field" (or court, in this case) then theoretically conference tournament winners should also always outperform at-large bids from their own conference in the Big Dance. Mid-major conferences are well aware that tournaments don't always produce true champions and they structure their conference tournaments accordingly. To ensure that they have the best chance of pulling off an upset in the Big Dance, they make sure they send their best team by giving them as many as three byes in the conference tournament. Instead of a traditional bracket, the #1 team might only have to win two games instead of four in order to win the tournament.

The conference tournament winners are now playing teams they have seen at least once during the season, on occasion twice already. You know enough about your opponents to form a competitive game plan, that can disguise matchup problems. Most teams are capable of catching fire and navigating 3 or 4 games against very familiar conference opponents. That proves nothing to me. Doing it against unfamiliar foes in another part of the country is what gets my attention.

 

[Zurp]

514 posts and no one yet has come up with a plausible way to get the powers that be to have a playoff, or the way to have one. This thread is a testimony to the fact that there isn't going to be any playoffs. :crazy:

I believe that there will be. I'm still against playoffs, but I think we'll see them soon (10 years or so) in college football - Division IA.

As for getting "the powers that be" to have a playoff - don't watch the bowl games.

 

[Best Buckeye]

I believe that there will be. I'm still against playoffs, but I think we'll see them soon (10 years or so) in college football - Division IA.

As for getting "the powers that be" to have a playoff - don't watch the bowl games.

It may well be that we have a playoff in the future but I wll believe it when I see it. And as far as not watching the bowl games , well I am sure that will happen.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

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

Well, since I'm also a YSU fan, I do hear more about I-AA than most OSU fans. But what's your point about "exposure"? This has zero to do with the topic at hand...pay attention. We're talking about a system (I-AA playoffs) that has been in place for decades, and has been highly successful and totally accepted by those in that system.

Face it. Whether you like it or not, the current BCS system doesn't account for the parity of today. We have different #1 teams seemingly every other week, simply due to the timing of losses. We have a one-loss Kansas team, whose only loss was a 6-pointer to the #1 team in the country, ranked behind a two-loss Georgia team who lost at home to a mediocre South Carolina team and got blown out by 21 points at Tennessee, just because they happpened to lose after Georgia had already lost their two. Pure bullshit.

 

[HailToMichigan]

At that point it was proven that UConn and Duke clearly were not the two best teams in the country. Whether it was George Mason and LSU, or any other two teams that they may have played, you can't argue they were the best teams. They put themselves in the best position, but that's all. Florida won it that year, and the next year also, proving (to me anyway) that they clearly were the best team. Being so loaded with sophomores during that first title run in '06, I would venture a guess that it took them a significant portion of their conference schedule to find their rhythm. They never lost it after that, until 2 years later they declare early for the NBA.

What is it about a tournament game that makes it that much more valid than 33 regular season games? And if that's true, then you can't claim (as you did earlier) that the regular season isn't thrown out with the bathwater. If one tournament game is more important than 33 regular season ones, then that almost totally invalidates the regular season.

The conference tournament winners are now playing teams they have seen at least once during the season, on occasion twice already. You know enough about your opponents to form a competitive game plan, that can disguise matchup problems. Most teams are capable of catching fire and navigating 3 or 4 games against very familiar conference opponents. That proves nothing to me. Doing it against unfamiliar foes in another part of the country is what gets my attention.

I'm not at all convinced. It's not as if the winners of the conference tournament had the chance to gameplan and the losers didn't. It's an even playing field. Both coaches get the same chance.

 

[Zurp]

And as far as not watching the bowl games , well I am sure that will happen.

My point is that the excuse to keep the bowl games is the money. Keep the money out of the bowls, and the NCAA won't want to keep them.

But I think that even if I were in favor of a playoffs, I wouldn't avoid watching the bowl games.

 

[BuckBackHome]

Death to the BCS!!!

My dream scenario is coming true. I was talking to some friends about this earlier this week. I want a weekend where WVU and Missouri both lose so the National Championship game is a "team that beat no one" and a team that did not even win its conference. I sure hope OK holds on, OSU rolls in the National Championship game, and the BCS lives no more.

 

[OH10]

514 posts and no one yet has come up with a plausible way to get the powers that be to have a playoff, or the way to have one. This thread is a testimony to the fact that there isn't going to be any playoffs. :crazy:

Wow. No one has come up with a plausible way? Is that a fact or are you just pretending its a fact because you love the antiquated bowl system?

Playoffs will never happen because the people who run the system have no sense of imagination and are illogically opposed to change.