College Playoff

[buckeyesin07]

Until someone can show me a playoff system in which the regular season isn't rendered meaningless, a la the college basketball season which is nothing more than a glorified 5 month preseason, I am not in favor of a playoff.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

"The cards fell in favor." Well that was awfully nice of the cards. Someone ought to inform Mr. Rudzinski that when you are the only BCS team with only one loss all year, it does not take the luck of the cards to get you a deserving spot in the championship game.

Well, we were indeed lucky that so many teams that were in front of us after our loss to Illinois ended up choking. I've rewatched The Game several times and each time Musberger and Herbstreit are talking how unlikely it is that Ohio State make it to the title game I just laugh out loud.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Until someone can show me a playoff system in which the regular season isn't rendered meaningless, a la the college basketball season which is nothing more than a glorified 5 month preseason, I am not in favor of a playoff.

Uh, how can the regular season be "meaningless" when it determines:

1. Whether or not you make the playoffs, and
2. If you make the playoffs, your seeding within the playoffs

 

[sluTiger]

Uh, how can the regular season be "meaningless" when it determines:

1. Whether or not you make the playoffs, and
2. If you make the playoffs, your seeding within the playoffs

Agreed. How kewl would it be to have a few more home games if your team is a high seed. It would be incredible.

 

[methomps]

Until someone can show me a playoff system in which the regular season isn't rendered meaningless, a la the college basketball season which is nothing more than a glorified 5 month preseason, I am not in favor of a playoff.

College basketball has more regular season games and a larger playoff pool. That is what lessens the regualar season. Plus, football > basketball.

 

[BB73]

"The cards fell in favor." Well that was awfully nice of the cards. Someone ought to inform Mr. Rudzinski that when you are the only BCS team with only one loss all year, it does not take the luck of the cards to get you a deserving spot in the championship game.

To be completely accurate, tOSU was the only BCS Conference champion with only 1 loss. Kansas was another BCS team with only 1 loss.

 

[HailToMichigan]

College basketball has more regular season games and a larger playoff pool. That is what lessens the regualar season. Plus, football > basketball.

No, it is in fact the presence of a playoff which reduces the value of the regular season. Bring a playoff into the picture, and suddenly games like this year's WVU-Pitt, Kansas-Missouri, Missouri-Oklahoma, LSU-Tennessee, LSU-VT, OU-Texas Tech, USC-Stanford, and so on, mean nothing. Zip. Oh, I forgot - home field advantage, if in fact that is the system settled on by playoff proponents, which is hardly unanimous.

And given the capricious way in which the NCAA handed home field to NW Mo. St. against Grand Valley, despite Grand Valley earning the higher seed and having a higher record, somehow "let's just do it the same way they do it in D-II" takes on less weight.

And does home-field advantage really mean that much? In 48 intra-conference games this year in the ACC, the home team was 28-20. An advantage, but significant enough? Seeding doesn't mean much either. This season, upset city, is supposedly the poster child for a playoff. It also says "on any given Saturday" and that seeding would be relatively meaningless. If Pitt can knock off WVU in Morgantown with all the marbles on the line....if App State can roll into the Big House and (%#$@%*!!!) and if Stanford can knock off USC in the Coliseum, what does that tell you about the value of seeds and home-field?

When you allow 4, or 8, or 12, or 16 teams, instead of just two, to play for the title, the value of games in the regular season is diminished. The only argument is by how much.

 

[Gatorubet]

It won't be perfect, but the crying that accompanies the inability to get in the top two will not be same as those crying because of an inability to be in the top eight.

I mean, people will still cry, but folks have a much greater chance to be in the top 8. If you can't make at lesat the top 8, then look to your mirror.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

It won't be perfect, but the crying that accompanies the inability to get in the top two will not be same as those crying because of an inability to be in the top eight.

I mean, people will still cry, but folks have a much greater chance to be in the top 8. If you can't make at lesat the top 8, then look to your mirror.

Totally agree, except for the "top 8" part. The 119-team I-A playoff format should be the exact same as the 119-team I-AA format. Teams like Hawaii would then get a shot...

 

[methomps]

No, it is in fact the presence of a playoff which reduces the value of the regular season. Bring a playoff into the picture, and suddenly games like this year's WVU-Pitt, Kansas-Missouri, Missouri-Oklahoma, LSU-Tennessee, LSU-VT, OU-Texas Tech, USC-Stanford, and so on, mean nothing. Zip. Oh, I forgot - home field advantage, if in fact that is the system settled on by playoff proponents, which is hardly unanimous.

In a 6-team playoff:
WVU-Pitt knocked WVU out (same with an 8-team playoff)
Kansas-Mizzou knocked Kansas out
Mizzou-OU knocked Mizzou out of a first round bye and got OU into the playoff
LSU-Tennessee got LSU in
LSU-VT decided which got a first round bye
OU TTech cost OU a first round bye
USC-Stanford knocked USC out

And given the capricious way in which the NCAA handed home field to NW Mo. St. against Grand Valley, despite Grand Valley earning the higher seed and having a higher record, somehow "let's just do it the same way they do it in D-II" takes on less weight.

Under the system I've advocated, homefield would be determined by a set formula, not "capriciousness." The #3 and #4 ranked teams get homefield. Done.

And does home-field advantage really mean that much? In 48 intra-conference games this year in the ACC, the home team was 28-20. An advantage, but significant enough?

Yes, but you're including 4 Duke home games there. Hardly the same thing. Does homefield advantage mean much? Is this a serious question?

Seeding doesn't mean much either. This season, upset city, is supposedly the poster child for a playoff. It also says "on any given Saturday" and that seeding would be relatively meaningless

Seeding reflects performance in the regular season and the rewards of either a first round bye or homefield advantage. Beyond that, it isn't supposed to mean anything.

If Pitt can knock off WVU in Morgantown with all the marbles on the line....if App State can roll into the Big House and (%#$@%*!!!) and if Stanford can knock off USC in the Coliseum, what does that tell you about the value of seeds and home-field?

I won big the last time I was in Vegas. I guess that means that crap about "house odds" is bullshit, huh? Hooray for selective anecdotal arguments!

When you allow 4, or 8, or 12, or 16 teams, instead of just two, to play for the title, the value of games in the regular season is diminished. The only argument is by how much.

No, it justs shifts importance around. If college basketball went to a BCS, then the only games that would matter come late April and March are those played by the top 3 teams. Instead, dozens of games are critical for bubble teams, tourney runs, etc.

Tell 2004 Auburn that the BCS preserved the value of their regular season.

 

[Lockup]

Until someone can show me a playoff system in which the regular season isn't rendered meaningless, a la the college basketball season which is nothing more than a glorified 5 month preseason, I am not in favor of a playoff.

you can keep the value of the regualr season pretty easy if you limit the amount of teams that get into a plyoff to 4 or 8. You still have to have a great regular season to get in and the games at the end will take on even more meaning if you have a shot at loseing and ending up out of the top 4 or 8.

What it does do though is maybe get more teams to schedule some tough OOC games early and take a chance. Look at OSU and USC next year. The loser of that game could potentially end up out of the NC hunt with 1 lose. Is that really fair when other teams are playing Sister Mary's Blind Orphans in their OOC games? I think not myself.

 

[Zurp]

It won't be perfect, but the crying that accompanies the inability to get in the top two will not be same as those crying because of an inability to be in the top eight.

I agree about the crying. The #3 team often has a legitimate complaint about being left out. The #9 team, though, does not. Their complaints are not going to get the media air-time that current #3 teams get.

But I say "Let them cry." You had your shot at the national championship game, but you lost it when you didn't win your conference, or when you lost to Pitt, or when you lost to Stanford or whoever else. Sure - it may look as though I'm just saying this because "my" team is in the national title game. But something tells me that arguments on this thread aren't convincing anyone, anyway.

I still feel that Auburn 2004 is the best argument for a playoff. Hawaii 2007 and Boise State 2006, and was it Utah 2004? Those are the second best reasons. I don't think that crying from the national media (led mostly by ESPN and their agendas) is a good argument.

 

[buckeyesin07]

Uh, how can the regular season be "meaningless" when it determines:

1. Whether or not you make the playoffs, and
2. If you make the playoffs, your seeding within the playoffs

Last year, if there were 4 or more teams in the playoff, UM would have gotten in, potentially rendering the showdown between #1 OSU and #2 UM in November meaningless. The only way I think you can have a playoff and retain the significance of the regular season is by limiting the number of teams to 4 and only letting in conference champions. Increasing the number of teams to 8 and letting in teams that did not win their conferences could result in "do-overs," which I am adamantly opposed to.

 

[kn1f3party]

I agree about the crying. The #3 team often has a legitimate complaint about being left out. The #9 team, though, does not. Their complaints are not going to get the media air-time that current #3 teams get.

But I say "Let them cry." You had your shot at the national championship game, but you lost it when you didn't win your conference, or when you lost to Pitt, or when you lost to Stanford or whoever else. Sure - it may look as though I'm just saying this because "my" team is in the national title game. But something tells me that arguments on this thread aren't convincing anyone, anyway.

I still feel that Auburn 2004 is the best argument for a playoff. Hawaii 2007 and Boise State 2006, and was it Utah 2004? Those are the second best reasons. I don't think that crying from the national media (led mostly by ESPN and their agendas) is a good argument.

I think the pool has to be expanded or something has to change in the rankings as well. '07 BSU, '06 Hawaii, and '04 Utah wouldn't be in if only the top eight go and they would be the only teams with a legitimate reason to complain at that point.

Last year, if there were 4 or more teams in the playoff, UM would have gotten in, potentially rendering the showdown between #1 OSU and #2 UM in November meaningless. The only way I think you can have a playoff and retain the significance of the regular season is by limiting the number of teams to 4 and only letting in conference champions. Increasing the number of teams to 8 and letting in teams that did not win their conferences could result in "do-overs," which I am adamantly opposed to.

I don't think a playoff meeting could ever render THE GAME meaningless. I, much like everyone else, hate the idea of playing the same team twice. I only hope that when seeding is determined things like rematches are considered and avoided.

 

[Lockup]

Last year, if there were 4 or more teams in the playoff, UM would have gotten in, potentially rendering the showdown between #1 OSU and #2 UM in November meaningless. The only way I think you can have a playoff and retain the significance of the regular season is by limiting the number of teams to 4 and only letting in conference champions. Increasing the number of teams to 8 and letting in teams that did not win their conferences could result in "do-overs," which I am adamantly opposed to.

That is ridiculous. If you had a 4 team playoff the loser shoul dhave dropped out of the top 4 so I say it would have been just as big of a deal as it was. An 8 team playoff they probably still would have gotten in but where would you have rather been seated 6, 7 or 1. The loser would have dropped to at least 6 or 7 and the winer is #1. I'd say those are still some pretty big things on the line.

Not to mention as was stated earlier "The Game" will always be big to the two fan bases. OSU and scUM are not going to be playing for a NC every year at the same time. So when neither or one of them are that game is going to be just as big of deal as it is now.

Imagine scUM coming in ranked 4th and us out of the playoff picture. OSU beats scUM to knock any chance of them getting shot at a NC. You don't think that is big enough?