College Playoff

[Lockup]

I'll say it again--your position devalues the regular season, as your list clearly shows that you have no problem including teams that have lost more than once in the regular season.

Apparently neither does the BCS since last time I looked LSU has lost two games too. Or are you taking the Miles stance that 2 losses in 3OT's is actually like 1 loss?

BTW I forgot Kansas who only lost 1 game.

Oh and since you completely dismiss OK for loseing to a 6-6 team I should point out that LSU lost to a 7-5 Kentucky team. One game makes that much of a difference eh?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

So let me get this straight--you are basing your argument for a playoff on the BCS got it wrong this year for leaving out the following teams:

Oklahoma (lost to 6-6 Colorado)
Georgia (2 losses, didn't win conference)
Hawaii (horrible SOS)
WVU (lost at home to Pitt when favored by 4 TDs)
Arizona State (ONE win against a team over .500)

Don't have time to address all the teams you originally mentioned, but here are a few points to consider:

Oklahoma: So what? LSU lost to a 5-loss Kentucky team and a 4-loss Arkansas team, and still is favored in the title game.
Georgia: YSU won the national title one year despite finishing third in their conference...you don't see Tressel giving his ring back.
Hawaii: What happens when Hawaii hands Georgia their ass?
WVU: As Ohio State fans, we know what can happen in rivalry games (check '91 and '93 if you've forgotten)
ASU: Many people say the same about our schedule...sometimes the records of those on your schedule are out of your control.

 

[Lockup]

To go a little futher into the whole have to win your conference to play for a NC try this scenrio out.

OSU is ranked #1 in the country with 1 lose. Thier season is done but the final rankings are not out yet.
They are the only 1 lose team in the country.
They do not win the Big ten because Wisky is undefeated in the Big Ten.

You going to tell OSU they don't deserve a shot at the NC?

 

[buckeyesin07]

Apparently neither does the BCS since last time I looked LSU has lost two games too. Or are you taking the Miles stance that 2 losses in 3OT's is actually like 1 loss?

BTW I forgot Kansas who only lost 1 game.

Oh and since you completely dismiss OK for loseing to a 6-6 team I should point out that LSU lost to a 7-5 Kentucky team. One game makes that much of a difference eh?

As usual, you're not responding to my argument. I think the BCS is fine for choosing LSU as the representative out of the two loss teams. You think the BCS is a mess for doing so and that is proof that a playoff is necessary. Try responding to my argument this time: explain to me how a playoff would not devalue the regular season by ensuring that teams with multiple losses get in every year?

 

[buckeyesin07]

Oklahoma: So what? LSU lost to a 5-loss Kentucky team and a 4-loss Arkansas team, and still is favored in the title game.
Georgia: YSU won the national title one year despite finishing third in their conference...you don't see Tressel giving his ring back.
Hawaii: What happens when Hawaii hands Georgia their ass?
WVU: As Ohio State fans, we know what can happen in rivalry games (check '91 and '93 if you've forgotten)
ASU: Many people say the same about our schedule...sometimes the records of those on your schedule are out of your control.

Oklahoma. Two losses. Maybe they should win all their games. If they do and still get left out, then they can complain.
Georgia. See comments for Oklahoma.
Hawaii. Schedule somebody. Oh, and you might want to try beating Louisiana Tech by more than one point.
WVU. Two losses. And try beating a 4 TD underdog when a trip to the NC game is on the line.
ASU. Two losses. And I'm not sure what schedule you're looking at, but the last I checked OSU beat 5 teams with above .500 records, so I don't know who you've been talking to, but I don't think that "many people say the same about our schedule."

Like I said before, NONE of these teams has anyone to blame but themselves for not getting to the NC game. Only one team has a legitimate beef: 2003 Auburn.

 

[methomps]

As usual, you're not responding to my argument. I think the BCS is fine for choosing LSU as the representative out of the two loss teams. You think the BCS is a mess for doing so and that is proof that a playoff is necessary. Try responding to my argument this time: explain to me how a playoff would not devalue the regular season by ensuring that teams with multiple losses get in every year?

By not allowing situations where undefeated teams get their regular season devalued by the BCS.


People keep talking about OSU-Michigan as if it happens like 2006 all the time. What about 1998? With a playoff that year, the Game is a play-in for the playoff. With the win, OSU gets to host UCLA in the first round.

Instead, with the BCS it only helps OSU get to 3rd.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Oklahoma. Two losses. Maybe they should win all their games. If they do and still get left out, then they can complain.
Georgia. See comments for Oklahoma.
Hawaii. Schedule somebody. Oh, and you might want to try beating Louisiana Tech by more than one point.
WVU. Two losses. And try beating a 4 TD underdog when a trip to the NC game is on the line.
ASU. Two losses. And I'm not sure what schedule you're looking at, but the last I checked OSU beat 5 teams with above .500 records, so I don't know who you've been talking to, but I don't think that "many people say the same about our schedule."

Like I said before, NONE of these teams has anyone to blame but themselves for not getting to the NC game. Only one team has a legitimate beef: 2003 Auburn.

Maybe we should've won all our games, too, and not had to worry about being fortunate enough to have a bunch of teams ahead of us lose. As for Hawaii, dipshit, they've had teams back out of agreements with them in the recent past (IIRC, Michigan dropped Hawaii to play App State). Boise State last year proved beyond any doubt that an excellent team can comeout of an otherwise garbage conference. You can't play any good team if they don't agree to play or they back out. As far as us beating five teams with records over .500 vice ASU's one win over a .500 team, people around the country still see our conference as "down", "soft", "easy", or whatever, this year. You sure talk cool now that we're in the title game, but I'd bet big money your tune would be different if a two-loss team (or two) were in the title game while our one-loss ass sat at home and watched it.

 

[Lockup]

As usual, you're not responding to my argument. I think the BCS is fine for choosing LSU as the representative out of the two loss teams. You think the BCS is a mess for doing so and that is proof that a playoff is necessary. Try responding to my argument this time: explain to me how a playoff would not devalue the regular season by ensuring that teams with multiple losses get in every year?

first I did respond to your arugument. You pointed out that I was ok with a two loss team getting into by way of a playoff. I responded by pointing out that LSU is a two loss team that the BCS let in. Your OK with LSU being in but that is based off your opinion which is part of what the BCS is made up of and part of what the problem is. Your OK with the NC being decided by people who cannot veiw all the games, have no business voting, are completely biased towards teams in their area and computers who can not even see a game. OK great!

A playoff system is necessary because on the field is where championships should be decided not by polls with humans and computers. The BCS, as most people are aware, was never built to handle what we have this year and in past years I mentioned. It works only when the top two teams have a better record than everybody else. So it is bascialy built to do nothing but pit #1 against #2 when it is completely obvious to everyone who it is.

A playoff ensures nothing. What teams do on the field in the regular season is what will partly determine who gets into the playoffs. The other part is based on the BCS rankings. In a 4 team playoff you may get away with loseing one game. In some years you may get away with loseing 2. You are not likely ever going to get away with loseing 3 games.

In an 8 team playoff the same holds true except you might have a better chance with 3 losses. It is still actually kind of rare to have a three loss team ranked in the top 8.

So how does that devalue the regular season? Is it going to devalue it a little bit? Well maybe but I still think with a limited number of teams (no more than 8) the regular season is still very important to not only get in but also get a better seeding for the playoffs.

If it does devalue the regular season a little bit so what? I think if OSU loses a chance to go to the NCG because they lose to USC next year and are now ranked below teams that played absolute horrid OOC games is a devalue of the whole system.

 

[methomps]

We should crown the champion at the end of the regular season. The BCS makes the regular season meaningless because a team can have one loss and still get to play the only undefeated team. The BCS basically says that the #2, 1-loss team's season was the same as the #1, undefeated team. It basically says that the #2 team's loss was meaningless. Thus, it makes the regular season meaningless.

The #2 team didn't earn it on the field. They have no room to complain. They should've won all their games. It's not fair to the undefeated #1 team. Did I mention that the BCS makes the regular season meaningless? [/carrying the regular season meaningless argument to its logical end]

 

[Lockup]

Oklahoma. Two losses. Maybe they should win all their games. If they do and still get left out, then they can complain.

Please explain why LSU is more deserving of going to the NCG over OK?

OK lost 2
LSU lost 2
OK lost to a 6-6 Colorado team
LSU lost to a 7-5 Kentucky team
Both won thier CCG.

 

[Lockup]

We should crown the champion at the end of the regular season. The BCS makes the regular season meaningless because a team can have one loss and still get to play the only undefeated team. The BCS basically says that the #2, 1-loss team's season was the same as the #1, undefeated team. It basically says that the #2 team's loss was meaningless. Thus, it makes the regular season meaningless.

The #2 team didn't earn it on the field. They have no room to complain. They should've won all their games. It's not fair to the undefeated #1 team. Did I mention that the BCS makes the regular season meaningless? [/carrying the regular season meaningless argument to its logical end]

Excellent point!

 

[HailToMichigan]

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!

...

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

Hooray for selective anecdotal arguments!

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

Yes, and four Virginia Tech road games too. Yes, it's a serious question. Duke is not some kind of Godwin's Law that ends arguments when they're included. Should I have used the SEC instead where every team would be in the BCS title game if they didn't have to play each other?

I'm not going to sit here and pick apart "the system you've advocated" because it's different from everyone else's. I'll find what I don't like in it, and someone else will go, "but under my system..." and "well, under my system over here." I'm not gonna bounce back and forth arguing against 20 different ideas. Whoever said it earlier that playoff proponents should get together, compromise on one solid system and propose that....well, that was probably the single best point made in nearly 50 pages.

A playoff would undeniably:
- Diminish the value of regular season games. I don't mean just the tilts like LSU-Tennessee, either. I mean the ones that don't matter until you lose them, like Stanford, App State, Colorado, Texas Tech, South Florida, all of which knocked contenders off their perch. Under the current system, those kinds of games change the entire landscape and ruin championship hopes. Institute a playoff and we all golf-clap for the cute little underdog and forget about it on Monday.
- Diminish the value of the bowls. I happen to like tradition in college football and therefore when people tell me that doesn't matter, I'm never going to agree.
- Create a number of financial headaches. Redistributing the money that currently exists in the bowl system is not simple and is a hurdle that must be jumped BEFORE a new system is put in place. No, it is not as easy as calling it the Tostitos Quarterfinals.

 

[methomps]

Hooray for selective anecdotal arguments!

Me winning every once in a while does not prove the notion of house odds wrong. Auburn 2004 does disprove the notion that the BCS captures the full value of the regular season.

Yes, and four Virginia Tech road games too. Yes, it's a serious question. Duke is not some kind of Godwin's Law that ends arguments when they're included. Should I have used the SEC instead where every team would be in the BCS title game if they didn't have to play each other?

Ok, then yes. It does. The home team has a significant crowd advantage. The home team also has the benefit of playing in weather conditions it is used to. Ohio State would be better acclimated to a December game in the Shoe than a Florida or California team.

I'm not going to sit here and pick apart "the system you've advocated" because it's different from everyone else's. I'll find what I don't like in it, and someone else will go, "but under my system..." and "well, under my system over here." I'm not gonna bounce back and forth arguing against 20 different ideas. Whoever said it earlier that playoff proponents should get together, compromise on one solid system and propose that....well, that was probably the single best point made in nearly 50 pages.

We got together and decided that we would take numerous variations of a playoff over the BCS. And why can't you ignore those other 20 and address mine?

A playoff would undeniably:
- Diminish the value of regular season games.

No it wouldn't. It would shift around value between various games, yes. But diminish, no? The Georgia-GaTech game that was meaningless under the BCS suddenly has meaning under a playoff.

I don't mean just the tilts like LSU-Tennessee, either.

So a playoff makes LSU-Tennessee meaningless? That game determines whether LSU gets into a playoff just as much as it determines whether they get into the BCS.

I mean the ones that don't matter until you lose them, like Stanford, App State, Colorado, Texas Tech, South Florida, all of which knocked contenders off their perch. Under the current system, those kinds of games change the entire landscape and ruin championship hopes. Institute a playoff and we all golf-clap for the cute little underdog and forget about it on Monday.

Like Illinois-Ohio State? Arkansas-LSU? Every game still matters in a playoff.

Stanford-USC knock USC out of a 6-team playoff
Appy-State Michigan. I don't know why you include this game. Michigan could've gotten back into things despite this game.
Colorado-OU and OU-TTech cost OU a 1st-round bye
USF- why did you mention this?

- Diminish the value of the bowls. I happen to like tradition in college football and therefore when people tell me that doesn't matter, I'm never going to agree.

How so?

- Create a number of financial headaches. Redistributing the money that currently exists in the bowl system is not simple and is a hurdle that must be jumped BEFORE a new system is put in place. No, it is not as easy as calling it the Tostitos Quarterfinals.

True, Mo Money Mo Problems

 

[Lockup]

A playoff would undeniably:
- Diminish the value of regular season games. I don't mean just the tilts like LSU-Tennessee, either. I mean the ones that don't matter until you lose them, like Stanford, App State, Colorado, Texas Tech, South Florida, all of which knocked contenders off their perch. Under the current system, those kinds of games change the entire landscape and ruin championship hopes. Institute a playoff and we all golf-clap for the cute little underdog and forget about it on Monday.

That is not correct. Loses like that only diminish NC hopes depending on where they happen. Lose early and you have a shot to get back in. Lose late (typically where tougher games are) and you have very little chance. We already gold clap about the underdog and forget about it(see Boise state). I would rather have seen just how far they could have gone in a playoff.

- Diminish the value of the bowls. I happen to like tradition in college football and therefore when people tell me that doesn't matter, I'm never going to agree.

So I guess you are in favor of the tradition in CFB where only two teams have a shot at the title regardless of whether other teams have the same records as them.

 

[BB73]

What about 1998? With a playoff that year, the Game is a play-in for the playoff. With the win, OSU gets to host UCLA in the first round.

Instead, with the BCS it only helps OSU get to 3rd.

Actually, tOSU ended up 4th in the BCS in 1998. Kansas State was 3rd.

But tOSU obviously would have qualified for any playoff system with more than 2 teams that year.