College Playoff

[buckeyesin07]

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.

I should have known that you'd once again refuse to address Zurp's or my point about taking weekends off during the regular season, as you have clearly demonstrated that you have no cogent argument against it.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

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

Great logic. "Because they lost". How about the other one-loss teams? How come the "because they lost" standard doesn't apply to them? Oh right, they get a pass because some system says they do...

 

[buckeyesin07]

Great logic. "Because they lost". How about the other one-loss teams? How come the "because they lost" standard doesn't apply to them? Oh right, they get a pass because some system says they do...

Yet you'd be ok with probably the same system choosing eight teams to create a playoff? Now THAT is great logic. While we're at it, let's just make one big 119 team playoff!

 

[methomps]

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.

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You said, "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."

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.

You have a margin of error with both systems. With a playoff, it is letting a "undeserving" team in. With the BCS, it is leaving an undefeated team out.

And no, my statement is correct. Unless you are suggesting that teams can predict for certain how the polls will react to a future loss, no team can take a game off. Do you think Kansas had any clue that a loss to a top 5 Missouri would drop them from #2 to #8 in the BCS?

Please note that there is a critical difference between "a team can lose and still stay within the top x" and "a team can know in advance that it can lose and still stay within the top x."

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?

It happens to frequently to be a tolerable exception.

 

[buckeyesin07]

I didn't put any words in your mouth. You said, "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."

Saying that only BCS teams that go undefeated have a complaint about getting left out is not the same as saying that only BCS conference teams can have ANY claim to the NC.

And no, my statement is correct. Unless you are suggesting that teams can predict for certain how the polls will react to a future loss, no team can take a game off. Do you think Kansas had any clue that a loss to a top 5 Missouri would drop them from #2 to #8 in the BCS?

No, your statement is incorrect. If only 2 teams get a shot at the title, they pretty much know they had better win every single game they play. If 8 teams get in, not so much.

It happens to frequently to be a tolerable exception.

One time in the 10 or so years that the BCS has been around isn't too frequently in my book, when the alternative is turning the college football regular season into the college basketball regular season. But I see we're simply not going to agree on this point.

 

[methomps]

Saying that only BCS teams that go undefeated have a complaint about getting left out is not the same as saying that only BCS conference teams can have ANY claim to the NC.

A complaint is a claim that you got left out.

No, your statement is incorrect. If only 2 teams get a shot at the title, they pretty much know they had better win every single game they play. If 8 teams get in, not so much.

If only two teams get a shot at the title, we pretty much knows that winning every single game may not be enough (Auburn 2004, Boise 2006). If 8 teams get in, not so much.

This year's teams have a combined 3 losses. And you still don't understand my statement. There is not one team that knows they can lose a game and not suffer any consequences, be it losing a first round bye, losing homefield advantage, or being flat left out.

One time in the 10 or so years that the BCS has been around isn't too frequently in my book, when the alternative is turning the college football regular season into the college basketball regular season. But I see we're simply not going to agree on this point.

How would a 4-, 6-, or 8-team playoff turn college football into college basketball?

 

[Lockup]

I should have known that you'd once again refuse to address Zurp's or my point about taking weekends off during the regular season, as you have clearly demonstrated that you have no cogent argument against it.

I did respond to Zurp on the last page trying reading before typing.

Just to point out too that the irony of you claiming anybody has no cogent argument against anything when your whole argument about mutiple one loss teams is "they shouldn't have lost" is just funny.

the system you like is flawed, you and everybody else knows it is. Even people who like a playoff setup know it has its flaws. Yet we can defend the flaws in the playoff system and point out ways to lessen their effect, you can't. Instead of being able to defend the current systems flaws you respond "Shouldn't have lost", which is no defense at all it is just a cop-out

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Yet you'd be ok with probably the same system choosing eight teams to create a playoff? Now THAT is great logic. While we're at it, let's just make one big 119 team playoff!

Uh, not nearly as big a deal in maybe getting #16 and #17 wrong as opposed to getting #2 and #3 wrong...then again, I guess common sense isn't your strong point, not is it? Next...

 

[Lockup]

Let's all not forget why we do not have a Playoff system already.

Not because of what it would do to the regular season.
Not because of the tradition of the bowls.
Not because of what it would do to the kids and their school work

but

Because money, money, money.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Let's all not forget why we do not have a Playoff system already.

Not because of what it would do to the regular season.
Not because of the tradition of the bowls.
Not because of what it would do to the kids and their school work

but

Because money, money, money.

no, no, no


The reason we don't have a playoff already is because of fear, fear, fear.

[strike]The people in charge of the decision[/strike]The people who are currently exercising their veto power over the move to a play-off right now are the University Presidents. These are men and women who never left academia.

There are too many reasons to go into it here, and I probably don't need to because the following statement is not controversial among people who have experience in the real world: THE REAL WORLD IS A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE FROM ACADEMIA.

People stay in academia all of their lives for various reasons. The majority stay there because they prefer it to the real world for one reason or another. Those who have been there long enough to become University Presidents have the culture of it ingrained into their soul, into their decision making process.

These men and women are not, by their nature, capitalists or entrepreneurs. They are egg-heads. After spending a few decades in the nest, they have nothing like the stomach necessary to scrap an old system where the money and the people are known commodities.

In order to get a play-off system, that's what they'd have to do: Leave a known system behind, with its well-heeled supporters who are all very complimentary of and connected to academia; and enter a new system with new supporters with unknown piles of money, many of whom will be private-sector types (I can hear the egg-heads cringe as I type).

Would there be less money in a play-off system? Don't make me laugh. Take one look at the acres of empty seating at lower-tier bowls and come back and make that point with a straight face. There were huge swaths of the New Mexico Bowl that were devoid of people, and New Mexico was playing in that game! Even if some of the lower-tier bowls were included in a play-off and some were not, it is difficult to imagine that those left behind would become less relevant than they are.

Or maybe people are just thinking of how irrelevant they would seem compared to the bowls that were made part of the play-off system, or to the play-off system itself if it were made separate. This is a tacit admission that the 8 games involving 16 play-off teams, or the 4 games involving 8 teams; would be far more interesting than what we have now.

Why do you think it is that even some BCS bowls were not sold out? Does anyone want to try to suggest that these games wouldn't be sold out if they were play off games? Feel free to believe it, but please don't expect me to refrain from laughing at you if you say it out loud.

Then of course there is the old, "People wouldn't be able to travel to multiple rounds of a play-off".

Bull-crap

Somehow, the NFL pulls it off and their fans survive.

These are the kinds of issues that private sector types, the entrepreneurs and capitalists that the egg-heads so fear, are very good at solving.

But those people will never get their hands on the problem until the egg-heads let them. Don't hold your breath.

 

[Panthersfan]

Yea, but we have to let the other teams win titles sometimes too.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Then of course there is the old, "People wouldn't be able to travel to multiple rounds of a play-off".

Bull-crap

Somehow, the NFL pulls it off and their fans survive.

The NFL pulls it off because it has no neutral site games except for one!

You said it yourself - many of the bowls cannot fill their stadiums. Would you honestly travel from Columbus to Orlando for, say, the C****s S****s Bowl if you knew it was just a precursor to something better?

If the bowls cannot fill the seats when they are the lone destination for a group of fans, how do you expect them to fill the seats when they are in competition with other bowls?

As for the BCS bowls:

- 93,923 attended the Rose Bowl (capacity: 92,542)
- 74,383 attended the Sugar Bowl (capacity: 69,703)
- 74,111 attended the Orange Bowl (capacity: 76,500)

The Fiesta was the only one that wasn't well attended. Why was this? West Virginia is a long way from Arizona, for one. Many West Virginia fans had already purchased non-refundable packages for New Orleans. Kind of emphasizes the point how people won't travel to multiple destinations, doesn't it?

I believe, by the way, that the BCS bowls are in a sense a victim of their own greed. You see how the New Year's Day BCS bowls were the ones above capacity. Folks do have to work. Everyone gets New Year's Day off and can usually get Jan. 2 as well. The 3rd and 4th were Thursday and Friday and lots of people had to be back at work - it's harder to get those days off for traveling. If the Orange and Fiesta were still held on Jan. 1 and didn't try and chase the TV ratings, they'd be sold out. Of course, they probably get a much better TV contract that way that cancels that out, so they don't care.

 

[Lockup]

The NFL pulls it off because it has no neutral site games except for one!

This is true. A better comparison may have been March Madness but I realize your talking a lot less fans. There may be some truth to they won't travel arguement but we really don't know and I think schools that do travel well like OSU and ND will still travel multiple games.

As for Egg-heads I get what DBB is saying. I thought it was kind of funny when one of the articles I was reading quote Gee as saying a playoff would only happen if you could rip the current system out of his cold dead hands(something to that effect at least). the reason I found this funny was he has admitted he was never into football until later in life. I have no doubt he is a huge Buckeye fan but he may not be such a fan of the sport itself.

I have a lot of respect for him but people like that really shouldn't be making this decision.

 

[methomps]

Well I guess we don't have to worry that the bowls we will be replacing always sell out. I wonder how many more West Virginia fans would've gone if they hadn't lost to Pitt and the Fiesta bowl was their semifinal location instead of a consolation bowl following a bitter letdown the last week of the season.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Just noticed that this thread is almost 4 years old, Lmao.
We need a vbet on how many times the same old arguements have been used.
Btw I am against a playoff because Mili is for it.