College Playoff

[Lockup]

But I'm on your side. Most people don't have any faith in the BCS system to pick the 2 best teams. Personally, I don't have any more faith in a playoff set-up than I do the BCS. In fact, I have less faith. Don't get me wrong - I would love to see most or all of the match-ups the playoffs would provide. I just don't believe that the better team wins every game in the playoffs, and you get teams that might not have even had a rightful claim at a national championship, and yet they "get hot" during the playoffs and win it all.

Everything you say here is true.

Having no faith in the BCS system is based off of how it works with the polls and computers. We all know the problems with the polls and the computers and yet this system picks what is percieved as the two best teams.

The playoff system isn't perfect either for some of the reason you ust mentioned. It may even still rely on that BCS setup to form the playoff. At least though you are not selecting only two teams. you can select 4, 8, 16 or whatever and them play it out. I persoanlly think if you leave the number low like 4 or 8 you lessen the chances of an undeserving team getting in and "getting hot".

The better team doesn't alwasy win but that happens in the BCS system too and in the regular season. No way to get rid of that.

 

[BB73]

My problem with that article, and that school of thought in general, is it is rather short-sighted. It seems that most agreed its a flawed system, but support it because it has been incredibly beneficial to Ohio State lately. The problem with this is Ohio State fans get to enjoy short-lived excitement about National Championships while the illegitimacy will continue to be an issue. Twenty years from now, wouldn't you want these championships to have credibility? Once you win a championship, you shouldn't have to justify its legitimacy.

Do you think any of the previous 9 BCS Champions are worried about jusitying the legitimacy of the system? I think they're proudly displaying the trophies and not worrying about what anybody thinks of the system.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Do you think any of the previous 9 BCS Champions are worried about jusitying the legitimacy of the system? I think they're proudly displaying the trophies and not worrying about what anybody thinks of the system.

EXACTLY


I hope that everyone and their brother questions the legitimacy of our championship, should we happen to win it. There is only so much a coach can do to keep a team hungry. But disrespect of their accomplishment will make them want to validate it.

I, on the other hand, will be as happy as a pig in slop knowing that there is another crystal football in the WHAC that the critics cannot touch. They can say anything they want. The only practical upshot will be the motivation of our players. That crystal football won't crack because of their screaming. Let 'em scream.

 

[Lockup]

EXACTLY


I hope that everyone and their brother questions the legitimacy of our championship, should we happen to win it. There is only so much a coach can do to keep a team hungry. But disrespect of their accomplishment will make them want to validate it.

I, on the other hand, will be as happy as a pig in slop knowing that there is another crystal football in the WHAC that the critics cannot touch. They can say anything they want. The only practical upshot will be the motivation of our players. That crystal football won't crack because of their screaming. Let 'em scream.

That I think was can all agree upon. :cheers:

 

[buckeyesin07]

So you think a system that is based off of polls by the media who half the time don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, coaches who admit they can't even watch games and half the time let assistants vote for them and computers who don't have the abilty to even watch a game is a system that works to pick the two best teams.

So how are you going to pick the teams that make the playoffs? By choosing them out of a hat? You have this dislike for the BCS system, yet you fail to grasp the fact that even if there were a playoff system, a BCS-type system (maybe even the exact same one) would pick the 4, 8, or however many teams that make the playoffs.

great let's play this game it is always fun.

Prior to the bowls Colorado was 6-6. OK lost to them. Kentucky was 7-5. LSU lost to them. That is only a 1 game difference and Kentucky barely beat a Florida St team that was missing 35 players.

Here is a better one for you.
LSU lost to r-kansas.
Mizzu hammered r-kansas.
OK beat Mizzu twice.
Therefore OK is better than LSU.

Nice to see that you're one of those geniuses that thinks the transitive property works in predicting college football results. That aside, I would have been OK with Oklahoma making it over LSU this year b/c LSU lost to two unranked teams, just as I'm OK with LSU making it over Oklahoma. If you haven't figured out yet that my point is that teams that have lost have no reason to gripe, then your reading comprehension skills aren't very good.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

You were right on the money with that one.

You probably should come up with a good argument for your side, rather than simply pointing out the mistakes in someone else's prediction for 1 football game.

It wasn't a prediction and I should've said "if" instead of "when"...that's my bad.

 

[Lockup]

So how are you going to pick the teams that make the playoffs? By choosing them out of a hat? You have this dislike for the BCS system, yet you fail to grasp the fact that even if there were a playoff system, a BCS-type system (maybe even the exact same one) would pick the 4, 8, or however many teams that make the playoffs.

I have no issue with the current system picking the top 4 or 8 to go to the playoffs. It has it's flaws but at least teams get to prove it on the field against each other. Yes you can still have teams that will complain if they are one away. Like I said nothing is perfect but it is better than what we have now.

Nice to see that you're one of those geniuses that thinks the transitive property works in predicting college football results. That aside, I would have been OK with Oklahoma making it over LSU this year b/c LSU lost to two unranked teams, just as I'm OK with LSU making it over Oklahoma. If you haven't figured out yet that my point is that teams that have lost have no reason to gripe, then your reading comprehension skills aren't very good.

Nice to see you are one of those geniuses who can't pick out simple sarcasm.

There is nothing wrong with my reading skills and I am quite aware of your postion. I will make this simple for you.

Here is your quote.

Not true. I think the system works to pick the top one-loss team(s). The others have no right to complain, as I've said many times before.

Prove it works.

Here is the scenrio.

Three teams ranked 1, 2 and 3
All have 1 loss.
All are from a BCS Conference.
All lost to the same team.

Which two teams get to go to the NCG in your system and why does the third one not get to gripe?

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Here is the scenrio.

Three teams ranked 1, 2 and 3
All have 1 loss.
All are from a BCS Conference.
All lost to the same team.

Which two teams get to go to the NCG in your system and why does the third one not get to gripe?

I'd say that team that beat all three of the one-loss teams should get a serious look...

 

[Lockup]

I'd say that team that beat all three of the one-loss teams should get a serious look...

Oh quit throwing a monkey wrench into it

 

[Zurp]

The better team doesn't alwasy win but that happens in the BCS system too and in the regular season. No way to get rid of that.

The difference, in my opinion, is that with the BCS system, you have to be "on" all the time. You can't afford to take the week off against Stanford or Pittsburgh. You really can't even afford to lose to Illinois or to Kentucky or Arkansas. Lose any of those games, and you're at the mercy of all the other teams, and the voters and computers. (The only exception is Auburn 2004.)

With the BCS, you have to be "on" during the regular season, and you have to be "on" in the national championship game. If there's a playoff, you can take a game off here and there. You can afford to lose to Stanford or Pittsburgh and make it into an 8-team playoff, and then be "on" at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

I gotta ask: has anyone changed his mind on this issue based on this thread?

 

[buckeyesin07]

Here is the scenrio.

Three teams ranked 1, 2 and 3
All have 1 loss.
All are from a BCS Conference.
All lost to the same team.

Which two teams get to go to the NCG in your system

The two that are ranked the highest according to whatever method has been determined the best in order to do so (e.g., the BCS system right now).

and why does the third one not get to gripe?

Because they lost. If they wanted to play for the NC, they should've won all their games.

Zurp said it best when he said that a playoff allows a team to take a week off and lose to a Stanford b/c that team can still make the postseason tournament. You obviously don't care if the regular season gets watered down because teams realize they don't have to bring their "A game" every weekend. I think that sense of urgency and knowing that if you don't win every weekend, you probably won't play for a national title is what makes college football so great. You apparently don't. Now let it go.

 

[methomps]

And they had a right to complain, in my opinion.

They didn't do what I said they needed to do. They need to join a BCS conference and go undefeated. Try reading my entire post next time.

So only BCS conference teams can have any claim to the NC?

The difference, in my opinion, is that with the BCS system, you have to be "on" all the time. You can't afford to take the week off against Stanford or Pittsburgh. You really can't even afford to lose to Illinois or to Kentucky or Arkansas. Lose any of those games, and you're at the mercy of all the other teams, and the voters and computers. (The only exception is Auburn 2004.)

With the BCS, you have to be "on" during the regular season, and you have to be "on" in the national championship game. If there's a playoff, you can take a game off here and there. You can afford to lose to Stanford or Pittsburgh and make it into an 8-team playoff, and then be "on" at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

I gotta ask: has anyone changed his mind on this issue based on this thread?

Zurp said it best when he said that a playoff allows a team to take a week off and lose to a Stanford b/c that team can still make the postseason tournament. You obviously don't care if the regular season gets watered down because teams realize they don't have to bring their "A game" every weekend. I think that sense of urgency and knowing that if you don't win every weekend, you probably won't play for a national title is what makes college football so great. You apparently don't. Now let it go.

That's not true. Kansas lost one game and they would be out of any 4-, 6-, or 8-team playoff. West Virginia's loss to Pitt knocked them out of a 4-, 6-, or 8-team playoff.

On the flip side, Oklahoma 2003 lost its last game and stayed in the BCS. This year, OU and LSU each lost their second-to-last game and made the BCS.
You can't take games off in a playoff any more than you can the BCS.

So how are you going to pick the teams that make the playoffs? By choosing them out of a hat? You have this dislike for the BCS system, yet you fail to grasp the fact that even if there were a playoff system, a BCS-type system (maybe even the exact same one) would pick the 4, 8, or however many teams that make the playoffs.

As has been said before, the main problem with the BCS isn't how it ranks the teams. The main problem is its assumption that there will be only two worthy teams at the end of the year. This was false in 2004 and will be false again and again.

 

[Lockup]

The difference, in my opinion, is that with the BCS system, you have to be "on" all the time. You can't afford to take the week off against Stanford or Pittsburgh. You really can't even afford to lose to Illinois or to Kentucky or Arkansas. Lose any of those games, and you're at the mercy of all the other teams, and the voters and computers. (The only exception is Auburn 2004.)

With the BCS, you have to be "on" during the regular season, and you have to be "on" in the national championship game. If there's a playoff, you can take a game off here and there. You can afford to lose to Stanford or Pittsburgh and make it into an 8-team playoff, and then be "on" at the end of the season and in the playoffs.

All that is true and I recognize that point of view. I am not in favor of a 16 team playoff for the reason you said here. I can live with 8 but really don't like it. I like 4 and believe 4 keeps the "on" part of the regular season in tact.

Even the current system is limited. You don't have to always be "on". That certainly applies to this year. In fact the current system could be argued that it is more biased to when you lose then if you lose.

To me it is just not a fair system.

It relies on human biased polls and computers.
It can't account for mulitple teams having the same record.
It works great when the two top teams have a better record than everybody else.
It can and has (auburn) left a team out that clearly deserve to go.
It can punish teams who bother to schedule tough OOC games and let teams in who choose to schedule creampuffs OOC.

I gotta ask: has anyone changed his mind on this issue based on this thread?

Oh I am sure the answer to this question is no.

 

[Lockup]

The two that are ranked the highest according to whatever method has been determined the best in order to do so (e.g., the BCS system right now).



Because they lost. If they wanted to play for the NC, they should've won all their games.

Zurp said it best when he said that a playoff allows a team to take a week off and lose to a Stanford b/c that team can still make the postseason tournament. You obviously don't care if the regular season gets watered down because teams realize they don't have to bring their "A game" every weekend. I think that sense of urgency and knowing that if you don't win every weekend, you probably won't play for a national title is what makes college football so great. You apparently don't. Now let it go.

I figured this was your answer.

So team three has no right to gripe because they lost even though they lost to the same team as one and two. So assuming the scores were the same too the only difference would have been when they lost. So a team loses a shot at the NC because they played a team later than the first two and you claim that works and they have no room to complain.

While I can respect your opinion and point of view in terms of why you like the current system that justification for that scenerio is completely stupid.

 

[buckeyesin07]

So only BCS conference teams can have any claim to the NC?

Not necessarily. Yet I don't think they have the same right to complain as a BCS conference team that goes undefeated and gets shut out of the NC game. Nice try on putting words into my mouth, though.

You can't take games off in a playoff any more than you can the BCS.

Sure you can. Anytime you are willing to let more teams in, you have a greater margin for error. Are you seriously going to try to dispute this? Of course there may be some irregularities in certain years in which you can demonstrate that with respect to a certain team, the situations under either system are the same. But as a general rule, your statement is wrong.

The main problem is its assumption that there will be only two worthy teams at the end of the year. This was false in 2004 and will be false again and again.

I'm not sure the BCS ever has been based on that assumption. The BCS is designed to pick the two most worthy teams out of a pool of candidates. Of course, when you have several undefeated teams, someone will get shut out and have a legitimate complaint. But that has been the exception now, hasn't it?